Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In Ohio’s closely watched gubernatorial race, JD Vance publicly urged Republicans to stop criticizing GOP nominee Vivek Ramaswamy’s abhorrent attack ad, but a growing chorus of conservatives is ignoring the vice president’s appeal.
On Thursday morning, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio denounced the ad featuring the estranged mother of Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, calling it “deeply, deeply troubling.” The governor added, “It’s wrong to run this ad. I would urge Ramaswamy’s campaign to take this down.”
The comments came a day after Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who is running for state auditor, similarly said during a local radio interview, “I probably wouldn’t run an ad like that, but every candidate gets to make their own decision.”
For his part, President Donald Trump defended the ad and said it doesn’t have “anything to do with” Ramaswamy, despite the fact that the Republican candidate’s campaign created and aired the ad.
Trump on Vivek Ramaswamy's ad featuring Amy Acton's estranged mother:I don't know anything about it. It's a very unusual situation to have a mother hate a daughter that much. But I don't think that has anything to do with Vivek.
Hours after the president’s comments, the latest Fox News poll found Acton narrowly leading Ramaswamy, 50% to 48%, though the poll was conducted before the latest controversy.
* Speaking of Ohio, in the state’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the aforementioned Fox News poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown with a 5-point advantage over appointed Republican incumbent Sen. Jon Husted, 52% to 47%.
That said, Brown is facing a daunting new challenge: Politico reported that a super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry is dumping an additional $9 million into the effort to defeat him, raising the group’s total spending in the race to a staggering $55 million.
* Though Mississippi was assumed to be a safe red state, Trump’s political operation confirmed that the president will hold a rally Monday in the hopes of boosting Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who’s facing an unexpectedly tough challenge from local prosecutor Scott Colom, the Democratic nominee.
The news coincides with an Axios report that said Senate Republicans are so concerned about the Mississippi race that it’s “weighing a cash infusion” for the contest.
* In Minnesota’s closely watched U.S. Senate race,The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan did not qualify to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa when she graduated from college, as she had previously claimed, but Phi Beta Kappa soon after provided evidence of her membership in the academic honor society, defusing the story.
* And it appears New York’s gubernatorial race is slipping away from Republicans: The latest Quinnipiac University poll found Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul with a double-digit lead over GOP nominee Bruce Blakeman, 55% to 41%.
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.
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.
Concerns regarding potential political interference and partisan challenges have heightened ahead of the scheduled opening of the new Congress on Jan. 3.
Concerns regarding potential political interference and partisan challenges have heightened ahead of the scheduled opening of the new Congress on Jan. 3.
Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla., is asking the Atlantic Coast Conference to disclose its policies governing online sports betting by conference employees, referees and other individuals connected to its competitions.
In a letter sent Thursday to ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and the conference's board of directors, Patronis said the request was prompted by the ACC's support for the Protect College Sports Act, a sweeping federal proposal addressing NIL rights, revenue sharing, athlete health and safety, transfers and other issues in college athletics.
"Seeing as the ACC is asking Congress for help with NIL, I believe we must have transparency regarding each body's policies and how they navigate online betting," Patronis wrote.
The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act, S. 4668, by a 77-22 vote on Sept. 28. The legislation now awaits consideration in the House. Supporters describe the bill as an effort to establish national standards for NIL compensation, revenue sharing, scholarships, medical coverage and the preservation of women's and Olympic sports.
Patronis asked the ACC to provide its online gambling policies before Congress returns in November, including rules governing staff members, officials and "other interested parties." He also questioned how the conference is protecting the integrity of college sports as sports betting becomes more widespread.
The NCAA has continued to enforce restrictions on wagering that could affect the integrity of college competition. The association says violations can result in severe penalties, including the loss of athletic eligibility, while warning that betting-related harassment and pressure can affect athletes, coaches and officials.
At the same time, the NCAA's Division I Administrative Committee has moved toward allowing athletes and athletics staff to bet on professional sports, while preserving restrictions involving college competitions. The NCAA said conferences and schools may impose additional rules of their own.
The ACC has been involved in lobbying efforts surrounding the Protect College Sports Act, which conference leaders have described as a way to create more consistent national rules for college athletics.
Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar said she plans to move out of her Washington DC apartment after federal agents raided her residence last week as part of a larger immigration investigation.
“I mean obviously, I can’t continue to live there,” Omar told MS Now in an interview that aired on Wednesday. “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, like, visiting off and on, having people track them.”
New designation of the Land of Standing-Up Rocks, known for its historic rock spires, passed with bipartisan support
An area of towering rock spires in south-eastern Arizona known among Native Americans as the Land of Standing-Up Rocks has become the nation’s newest national park.
Legislation to create Chiricahua national park was sent to the White House and Donald Trump signed it on Tuesday. It passed Congress with bipartisan backing and is now the 64th US national park.
Federal authorities arrested a 17-year-old Texas boy accused of plotting to assassinate Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, and carry out a separate terrorist attack in North Texas on behalf of ISIS, according to a local report.
The teenager, who has not been publicly identified, was arrested on Oct. 5 after acquiring a firearm, according to federal law enforcement sources cited by WFAA.
"I am grateful to the FBI and law enforcement for stopping this threat," Self said in a statement posted on X.
"My family and I are safe, and I remain focused on serving the people of Texas' 3rd District," he continued. "Preserving our constitutional republic from radical Islam means accepting the costs that come with itâname-calling, threats, and worse."
"Our Founders believed this country was worth the sacrifice," Self added. "I served 25 years in the military because defending freedom was worth the sacrifice. This only strengthens my resolve. I will not back down."
Self spoke about the situation to CBS News Texas following the arrest.
"When we knew about it, they had him," Self said, admitting he had limited knowledge of what went on.
"The FBI, through the Capitol Police, only tells us so much," he told CBS, although he did note, "I understand that they've known about this kid for a while."
According to WFAA, the teenager allegedly planned to target Self at an event last Saturday.
Federal investigators also believe the suspect was planning a separate attack on behalf of ISIS, the outlet reported.
When asked by WFAA whether his public positions on Islamic extremism might explain why he was targeted, Self said he could not be certain.
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.
Democrats believe circumstances have aligned for them to win a slew of competitive elections in the state
Mary Peltola’s campaign to represent Alaska in the US Senate has taken her to parts of the massive state’s interior that are inaccessible by road and on the frontlines of the cost-of-living crisis she hopes will make her the first Democrat to win the seat in nearly two decades.
She has been to towns where paper towels retail for $40, a half gallon of oat milk goes for $21 and the cost of a new freezer can be quadruple what it is in the state’s largest city, Anchorage, simply because it’s so complicated to get there. Along the Arctic Ocean, she’s heard of communities where power bills have climbed to $1,500 a month because they rely on generators for power and the Iran war has pushed the cost of diesel to new heights.
Frustration with a sprawling fraud scandal has cut Peggy Flanagan’s poll lead – could ex-NFL reporter Michele Tafoya win a first statewide election for Republicans in 20 years?
As Democrats fight to regain control of the US Senate, hopes are rising in states – from Kansas to Texas – where they have not prevailed in decades. But in Minnesota, where Republicans have not won statewide election since 2006, the contest for an open Senate seat is closer than expected.
Should Peggy Flanagan – the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor – win the election, she will be the first Native American woman to serve in the US Senate. But history has not yet been made. The closely watched Cook Political Report shifted its rating on the race this week from “likely Democrat” to “lean Democrat”.
Regardless of the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, any party that wins the majority will have done so because of the independent vote. For the past several elections, this cohort has been the crucial swing vote that ultimately decides the election. Independents are the kingmakers.
If Democrats win big on Nov. 3, expect a familiar story. Pundits will call it a mandate. Party leaders will say voters want their agenda. They will be wrong.
I have spent my career in partisan politics, and I keep seeing the same mistake. Both parties read the results of a protest as an endorsement.
Here is why. Independents do not fit neatly into a partisan box. They are not secret Democrats, and they are not secret Republicans. They agree with each side on some things and with neither on others, which is exactly why neither party can claim them.
That does not mean they lack convictions. Independents, like most Americans, have coherent views on politics and policy. And these positions are widely shared and present opportunity for meaningful legislation. On energy, 70% of Americans want government to actively expand supply: more energy, lower prices, less pollution. On immigration, 77% want legal immigration maintained or expanded, focused on the skills the economy needs. Respect our laws and welcome those who contribute.
On technology, 83% want parents to have the legal right to see and control what their kids do on social media. On spending, 73% want to bar Congress from using accounting tricks that hide the long-term cost of a bill. On corruption, 78% support term limits for members of Congress.
Put those together and the agenda is clear. Live within our means. Keep our promises. Win the future while protecting our communities, kids and liberties. Build a government accountable to people, not parties. That is not the progressive wish list, and it is not the Republican platform either. A vote against whoever is in charge is not a vote for anyoneâs program. It is a demand for these things.
Look at what independents are actually upset about. The border is still unresolved after years of promises. Energy costs keep squeezing family budgets. And artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping jobs and daily life while Congress offers speeches instead of a plan. These are not left or right complaints. They are complaints about people in charge who are not getting results.
Independents are now the largest bloc of American voters. They decide close elections, and they have no loyalty to either team. They vote for whoever seems least likely to make things worse. Two years ago, that was one party. This year it may be the other.
The numbers tell the story. Roughly two-thirds of independents say Washington does not hear them. That is not a number that describes people who have found a new political home. It describes people who feel abandoned and are looking for the exit.
For a blue wave to occur, it will rest on independents who are holding their noses. They will be voting for Democrats because the alternative looks worse, not because they have embraced the progressive wish list. Treating that vote as a blank check is how a party loses the same voters two years later.
Consider crime. Most Americans, whatever their party, want safe streets and a justice system that works. Imagine House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stepping to the microphone to announce a serious, commonsense crime bill. Fund good policing. Go after repeat violent offenders. Protect due process. It would not be a radical idea. It would be a reasonable one.
That single act would change the national story. Independents would take notice. It would say the party is willing to govern from the center and listen to people who do not agree with it on everything.
But that bill will not come, and the reason is not hard to see. A party that wants the support of the middle is being pulled by a left flank that treats a compromise on public safety as betrayal. Groups like the Democratic Socialists of America hold enormous sway over the energy and the primaries. Jeffries cannot move toward the center without a fight inside his own coalition, and so he does not try.
That is the real danger for Democrats. The very independents who may hand them a majority will be watching to see what they do with it. If the answer is a sharp turn toward the activist left, those voters will leave just as fast as they arrived.
Republicans should not take comfort either. If they lose, it will be because they too failed to listen. Both parties have spent years competing for the loyal base and ignoring everyone else. The result is a country in which most voters feel they are choosing between two disappointments.
There is a better path, and it is not complicated. Secure the border and fix the legal immigration system. Lower energy costs by building what we need. Set sensible guardrails on AI before the technology outruns us. Do these things in a way that respects voters of every stripe, and independents will reward you. Ignore them, and they will punish you, whatever letter follows your name.
This is why just a few handfuls of independents can entirely change the way we view and conduct politics. A growing share of the country is independent, yet very few members of Congress are. That gap is the story behind the story this November.
When the votes are counted, the winners should ask a hard question. Did voters choose us, or did they simply reject the other side? The honest answer will decide whether this election is a turning point or just another swing of the pendulum.
Pro-Israel lobby says it will prioritize individuals' donations to candidates as it did before creating PAC and super PAC in 2021, which some analysts say hurt its image
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.
Former speaker is latest target of mailings sent to various Congress members in the lead-up to the midterm elections
California representative Nancy Pelosi’s office received “a suspicious letter” on Wednesday in what appears to be the latest incident of ill-intentioned mailings targeted at US Congress members before the midterm elections.
The offices of more than three dozen members of Congress across the political spectrum have received envelopes containing white powder in recent days. One lawmaker’s office said preliminary tests indicated the powder was not hazardous.
The four debates in Maine’s U.S. Senate race, between incumbent Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson, are over. Early voting is underway. And while Jackson survived the quartet of clashes, the race remains as close as ever.
Debate expectations for Jackson were between middling and low. His down-home style was compared to the senator’s highly polished vibe. He had far less experience in high-profile debates. But ultimately Collins and Jackson both effectively delivered their core messages.
As in previous campaigns, Collins tried to claim the mantle of bipartisanship and argue that only she can deliver for Maine. She shared laundry lists of bills she worked on and specific projects helping towns. (Her campaign also focuses on this in ads; I even received a detailed text to my phone claiming credit for “$59 million for the City of Bangor.”)
“Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” Jackson said in the first debate.
Jackson took both parts of Collins’ case head on. He again noted Collins’ record of backing Trump 96% of the time, contrary to her assertions of bipartisanship. He contended that Collins’ deliverables are woefully insufficient compared to the cuts she has backed. “Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” he said in the first debate.
Three debates later, Collins herself helped the case against her bipartisan bonafides. A moderator asked her to identify a time when a vote against Republicans changed the outcome. Collins muffed. She cited opposition she organized to Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defense secretary, which failed after one senator, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, changed his mind at the last minute. “So that didn’t change the outcome,” one of the moderators replied.
Jackson’s arsonist comparison was not the only memorable image he conjured. After Collins bragged that she stopped Canadian tariffs on road salt, the Democrat replied, “We can’t eat road salt.” Memes proliferated featuring images of a truck carrying road salt labeled as “Meals on Wheels” and Collins pictured as Marie Antoinette saying, “Let them eat road salt.” A Mainer at the Fryeburg Fair confronted Collins with Jackson’s remark.
Beyond its virality online, Jackson’s remark bore real-world heft. Food prices are up and heating oil prices soared 81% since last year. Often using examples about himself and others, Jackson focused on understanding working people, the necessity of a better healthcare system and fighting oligarchic power. He has also challenged Collins’ contention that he would not be able to help Maine like her.
Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different.
None of the aforementioned exchanges got the most national attention, though. The one that grabbed out-of-state headlines arose after a protester with a fake press pass interrupted the last forum to rail against the environmental impact of data centers and corporations’ financial power. Collins quickly and without evidence claimed, “So this is obviously one of Troy’s supporters.”
“Oh, shut up. I don’t even know that kid,” Jackson replied.
“Oh, right,” Collins answered.
In a very close race like this election, any moment can matter. But it is striking that, afterward, many Mainers did not find Jackson’s remark problematic. Journalist Kevin Miller of Maine Public Radio wrote that Jackson’s comment was “more flippant than mean-spirited. The two rivals even seemed to exchange snarky smiles before the debate quickly resumed without future disruption.” On a post-debate panel, reporter Rob Caldwell said that, given the negativity of the campaign, the candidates were “going to get ticked off. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be human. … There are a lot of worse things that they could have said.” Callers to a radio show the following day were divided over whether Jackson was rude or had rightly responded with a Maine “shaddup.”
Jackson’s remark was not what the Bangor Daily News highlighted in its front page after the final debate. Instead, the paper focused on Collins saying, “I think our democracy will be just fine,” while Jackson judged American democracy as “at risk” and observed that “Donald Trump is trying every trick in the book to keep power.”
Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different. Jackson’s criticisms of Collins’ conflicting votes are getting coverage, and the press is highlighting pay-for-play corruption allegations and examining the dark-money billionaires disproportionately benefiting Collins.
The two campaigns have not been the same and probably will stay that way. Jackson is holding high-profile events with Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Collins’ most high-profile visitor is former Sen. Joe Manchin. Trump has not come and Collins would not want him. While Jackson uses his events to recruit canvassers and grow his field operation, Collins is helped by canvassers paid by Elon Musk.
Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger.
Jackson closed with a “who’s on your side” message — the billionaires or the Maine people. Some ads feature past Collins voters who support Jackson now. Some of these voters cite Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Collins is defending her Kavanaugh vote by saying that, despite his track record, she could not know he would overturn Roe v. Wade.
National Republicans’ closing message features sharply negative advertising claiming Jackson bullies women, calling him “a creep” and even attacking his relationship with Lana Pelletier, his longtime partner and the mother of his children. (The Collins campaign asked for the ad to be taken down but critics noted that Collins brought up Jackson’s family in a September interview in Politico and Pelletier has spoken out against the personal attack.)
Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger, and Republicans are facing the same headwinds in Maine as elsewhere. But it is never easy to defeat an incumbent and Collins’ brand is strong.
Mainers will have to decide if they want to re-elect Collins, who thinks our republic is not threatened by Trump but brings targeted resources to Maine, or if they pick Jackson, a self-described “working-class guy with a funny accent” who pledges to change policies, lift up all Mainers and protect our constitutional order.
Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie themidterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.
The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.
“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.
The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.
In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.
The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.
“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”
The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including byfiling a lawsuit against California election officials last week.
Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”
DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”
A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”
The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”
Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.
Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.
CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.
Lawler, a moderate Republican, is fending off a challenge from Democrat Cait Conley in the Hudson valley. It is among the most-watched races that could determine whether Republicans hold on to their majority in Congress.
Login
