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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dopo la scomparsa della giornalista del Tg2 Christiana Ruggeri, i suoi due cani Zeus e Bella sono in cerca di una nuova casa che li accolga. A occuparsi di loro è ora la sezione di Olbia della Lega nazionale per la difesa del cane. L’intenzione è quella, se possibile, di evitare di separare i due animali.

“Dopo una perdita così dolorosa, vorremmo risparmiare loro anche il dolore della separazione. Per questo cerchiamo con tutto il cuore un’adozione di coppia” viene infatti spiegato. Quali sono però le caratteristiche dei due cani che ora possono essere adottati? Zeus è un pastore tedesco di circa 4-5 anni, sterilizzato.

Era molto legato alla giornalista, tanto da condividere con lei il letto. “È un cane energico e reattivo, che ha bisogno di movimento, tempo e di una persona con esperienza, capace di conoscerlo e accompagnarlo in questo momento difficile”, spiegano i volontari. Per lui, in particolare, si cerca una sistemazione in cui non siano presenti altri cani maschi, con i quali si ritiene che sarebbe incompatibile.

Discorso diverso, invece, riguarda Bella, che ha circa 6 anni e viene descritta come “una cagnolina dolcissima, ma molto paurosa”. “Ha bisogno di una famiglia gentile e paziente, che sappia rispettare i suoi tempi e aiutarla a sentirsi al sicuro” viene infatti raccomandato.

L'articolo “Dopo una perdita così dolorosa, vorremmo risparmiare loro anche il dolore della separazione”: si cerca un nuovo proprietario per i cani della giornalista del Tg2 Christiana Ruggeri proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

The repressive leaders of Iran and Russia seek to carve their people off from the global internet to maintain their hold on power.

The repressive leaders of Iran and Russia seek to carve their people off from the global internet to maintain their hold on power.

Politico has issued a correction and re-examined multiple articles after the White House threatened "consequences" if the outlet doesn't retract its recent reporting on President Donald Trump's chief of staff Susie Wiles, Fox News Digital has confirmed.

In a letter addressed to Politico's global editor-in-chief Jonathan Greenberger on Monday, White House counsel William Scharf slammed three "demonstrably false and defamatory articles" about Wiles, including claims that Trump was mulling Wiles' ouster, and that he had a "freakout" when Politico published its story.

"These publications reflect far more than sloppy reporting or an unfortunate, inadvertent reliance on unreliable sources. They instead reveal a disturbing pattern of the publication of sensational falsehoods despite direct, on-the-record refutations from senior White House officials and even the President of the United States himself, as well as documentary evidence provided to Politico, all of which established clearly that claims central to Politico's planned reporting were false. Put simply, your publication was told the truth and presented with corroborating evidence, and yet chose to publish fanciful fiction regardless," Scharf wrote in the letter first reported by Axios that has been obtained by Fox News Digital. 

WHITE HOUSE CONFIRMS APPEAL AS TRUMP-APPOINTED JUDGE EXTENDS RULING RESTORING CNN, MS NOW, POLITICO ACCESS

"This is not a question of competing interpretations, editorial judgment, or political disagreement. It is a question of whether a major news organization may knowingly publish demonstrably false factual allegations, disregard documentary evidence contradicting those allegations, and then hide behind anonymous sources when confronted with the truth. It may not. I therefore demand that Politico retract these defamatory articles and issue corrections promptly, or face the consequences," he later continued.

Scharf gave Politico "48 hours" to reverse its reporting and issue an apology to both Trump and Wiles before the White House explores "appropriate and available legal remedies."

WHITE HOUSE REPORTERS REACT TO KATIE ZACHARIA'S 'BRUTAL' EXIT AS TRUMP'S PRESS SECRETARY

"The White House has no obligation to pretend that this persistent conduct is consistent with responsible journalism. Nor should Politico expect that its institutional behavior will be insulated from scrutiny. After all, freedom of the press is not a professional exemption from accountability," Scharf told Greenberg.

"I therefore demand that Politico immediately correct or retract these publications, issue a prominent and public apology to the President of the United States and to Ms. Wiles, and remove the false reporting from your digital archives. Failure to do so or otherwise respond justifying Politico’s publications within 48 hours will prompt an immediate review of Politico's relationship with the White House, and, of course, consideration of all other appropriate and available legal remedies."

Politico responded on Wednesday, insisting it strives for accuracy in its reporting and "categorically rejects the false accusations" that it "chose to publish fanciful fiction" and "purposeful falsehoods designed to mislead the public." 

"That said, Politico takes seriously assertions like those made in your letter. Accordingly, consistent with its commitment to ensuring its reporting is as accurate as possible, Politico re-examined all three articles identified in your letter and did follow up reporting," Politico’s attorney wrote in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital. 

"As a result, Politico determined it was appropriate to correct one of the three articles identified in your letter," the letter continued. 

Politico did not offer an apology to Trump and Wiles, or correct the report that Trump was considering moving on from Wiles. Instead, Politico corrected an article to note that Wiles simply offered "positive reinforcement" for then-White House press secretary Katie Zacharia’s Fox News appearance on "Hannity" last week before she stepped down, but did not play a direct role in booking the interview. 

BIDEN-ERA FBI RECORDS REVEAL SPRAWLING WILES MONITORING AS BURIED CONTACTS SURFACE

"The updated version of that article, reflecting the information obtained through Politico’s further reporting, has now been published. Promptly and transparently making corrections, as Politico has done here, is a hallmark of journalistic ethics and integrity, and of the very professionalism your letter falsely claims Politico is lacking," Politico’s attorney wrote. 

The White House did not immediately respond when asked for comment. 

Politico has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration in recent weeks as among the outlets that were banned by the White House last month, which had been reversed by a judge's ruling.

"To be clear, any error that you could identify in Politico’s reporting about the President or his administration would not excuse the White House’s unconstitutional retaliation and discrimination against Politico’s for the content of its news coverage," Politico’s response said. 

"The White House’s efforts to retaliate against Politico for its constitutionally protected journalism, and to discriminate against Politico based on what the President perceives to be its editorial viewpoint is a profound affront to the most fundamental constitutional rights," the response continued. "Politico will defend its journalism and the right of its reporters to pursue their mission and report fearlessly on the President and other White House officials for the benefit of the American public, notwithstanding the White House’s ongoing attempts to intimidate Politico and chill and punish that reporting."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation that would create the first-ever Truth and Accountability Commission to investigate what he calls abuses of power by the Trump administration. The bill, first shared with The Hill, notes the commission would examine several issues, including the administration’s decision to launch a war in Iran without congressional authorization.…

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation that would create the first-ever Truth and Accountability Commission to investigate what he calls abuses of power by the Trump administration. The bill, first shared with The Hill, notes the commission would examine several issues, including the administration’s decision to launch a war in Iran without congressional authorization.…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A la medianoche del 15 de octubre de 2026, mientras los reyes Felipe y Letizia le entregaban un trofeo en forma de globo terráqueo y un cheque de un millón de euros ante 4.000 invitados puestos en pie aplaudiéndola durante 10 minutos, los editores de Penguin Random House se enteraban de que Isabel Allende, la reina madre de su catálogo, les dejaba por otra. Por Planeta, concretamente, el gigante de la competencia, a cuyo celebérrimo premio se había presentado Allende anónimamente sin decirles ni media, junto a otros 1.423 escritores, y que, gracias al prodigioso olfato del jurado, había ganado de calle. Acababa así, por las bravas, una relación profesional, y personal, de 44 años que comenzó con la publicación, en 1982, del superventas mundial La casa de los espíritus y siguió con otras 30 obras siempre rentables para todos. Hasta aquí, una de tantas historias de cuernos profesionales, y personales, en los que el cornudo es el último en enterarse. Pero, más allá de guerras editoriales y cálculos de mercado, me interesan las razones íntimas por las que Allende, una mujer de 84 años con la vida resuelta y los suculentos dividendos de sus libros engordándole las arcas cada fin de año, da semejante campanazo. Se me dirá que por dinero, claro, que nunca es suficiente. Por el millón del premio, multiplicado por tres o cuatro, más los derechos del siguiente libro, más equis prebendas, porque cuando se ficha a una grande, se suele fichar el lote, como cuando la muy fina revista ¡Hola! contrata desde la pedida de mano, la boda, la luna de miel, el embarazo, el bautizo y hasta el divorcio de una pareja de famosos, que ahora se divorcian hasta en las mejores familias. Poderosas razones que, sospecho, no explican del todo el volantazo de la chilena.

Seguir leyendo

© Alejandro García (EFE)

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said she will have to move out of her apartment in Washington, D.C., because of threats she’s received after federal agents executed a search warrant at her residence last week as part of an immigration fraud probe.  “Obviously, I can’t continue to live there … Because our address has been public…

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said she will have to move out of her apartment in Washington, D.C., because of threats she’s received after federal agents executed a search warrant at her residence last week as part of an immigration fraud probe.  “Obviously, I can’t continue to live there … Because our address has been public…

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump and cabinet officials held a roundtable at the White House on Wednesday to highlight the administration's progress in combating cybercrime, including preventing $1.6 billion in losses and cracking down on sexual extortion.

The post Trump at Roundtable Details Administration’s Crackdown on Cybercrime appeared first on Breitbart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A bizarre, bizarre thing’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s ‘obsession’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This story has been updated to include additional information.

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

"She didn’t break. She was really committed," the 25-year-old actress tells The Hollywood Reporter.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) called a controversial political ad run by Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) “shameful,” saying she thinks it will hurt Republicans up and down the ballot in Ohio. “This ad is going to go down as the most shameful, disgusting, offensive ad this election season,” Mace told CNN’s Jake Tapper on…

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) called a controversial political ad run by Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) “shameful,” saying she thinks it will hurt Republicans up and down the ballot in Ohio. “This ad is going to go down as the most shameful, disgusting, offensive ad this election season,” Mace told CNN’s Jake Tapper on…

Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie the midterm 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.

As the complaint notes, state officials have disputed the accuracy of those lists.

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 citizen 20 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 by filing 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.

The post Democrats sue Trump for ‘intimidating’ state election officials appeared first on MS NOW.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito further distanced themselves from their Supreme Court colleagues on Wednesday when they were the only two jurists to note their objections to the court’s refusal to let the Trump administration immediately enforce its preferred policy on gender-affirming care in prison.

The court’s unsigned order contained no explanation from the majority or the dissenting duo. Still, it’s the latest data point showing Thomas and Alito backing the administration even when their fellow GOP appointees — including President Donald Trump’s own three appointees — decline to do so.

Wednesday’s order follows last month’s Supreme Court rejection of Trump’s desired mail-ballot restrictions for the midterm elections. That loss led the president to lash out at the court, including his own appointees, while calling Thomas and Alito “legends.”

Asked during a recently published CBS News interview about a Wall Street Journal study showing that Alito sided with Trump more than any of his colleagues, the justice said he’s “not trying to decide cases to help President Trump.”

Whatever his or Thomas’ intentions, their latest actions spotlight their dynamic of voting for the president’s position when other justices don’t. Their votes come ahead of the rapidly approaching Election Day in less than two weeks, with voters set to determine which party will control Senate confirmation of justices for the near future.

Alito said he’s staying on the court at least through this court term, even if Democrats win back Senate control. Thomas has likewise not signaled that he is stepping down imminently. If he stays on the court through the next term, he will become the longest-serving justice ever. In their late 70s, Thomas and Alito are the two eldest members of the current court, but they aren’t very old by the court’s historical standards.

Yet if Trump has an opportunity to appoint their successors or any other justices before he leaves office in 2029, their latest votes underscore why he will likely model his next selection(s) on them, rather than on the justices he has put on the bench thus far, who have backed him in a series of significant cases but not all of them.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Supreme Court’s split on gender care highlights Alito and Thomas as pro-Trump outliers appeared first on MS NOW.

By any fair measure, Donald Trump’s second term has been brutal for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for a variety of reasons. At the heart of the problem is the president’s stated determination not merely to brazenly politicize federal disaster aid, but to destroy the agency altogether, for reasons he has struggled to explain.

In May 2025, then-acting FEMA chief Cameron Hamilton testified before Congress that it would be in the public’s interest if FEMA continued to exist. He was fired the next day, because Hamilton’s line was at odds with Trump’s stated position, which is that FEMA should be destroyed and states left to their own devices.

A year later, after quite a few acting FEMA administrators had come and gone, the president made an unexpected move: He brought Hamilton back for a second stint, and the Senate confirmed him soon after.

I can’t help but notice that Hamilton’s position is far more in line with the White House’s than it was early last year. Politico reported:

The Trump administration’s disaster chief told state officials Tuesday they must increase their financial reserves and emergency capabilities to handle most disasters on their own, without federal help.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Cameron Hamilton gave unprecedented detail at a conference in Little Rock, Arkansas, about the administration’s long-planned shift of disaster responsibilities to states.

“Every state must have the appropriate financial reserves” and other abilities “to ensure that recovery efforts can start immediately and not necessarily be held up simply because of the federal [disaster] declaration process,” Hamilton said, according to a recording of his remarks obtained by Politico.

“A future that I hope we would shoot for is one where we wouldn’t require as many disasters because the capability of states is so high and so substantial,” Hamilton added, referring to presidential authorizations of federal disaster aid.

Whether the current FEMA chief is allowed to say so or not, the Trump-backed model that Hamilton endorsed will not and cannot work. State and local governments simply do not have the wherewithal — financial resources, personnel, equipment, etc. — to respond to major disasters. It’s why FEMA was created in the first place: The federal government can marshal effective responses before and after a crisis in ways others cannot.

As Politico’s report added, Eric Holdeman, a longtime emergency management official, wrote on LinkedIn on Monday in response to Hamilton’s memo, “There are many states with [minuscule] emergency management offices and budgets. There are states with slim rainy-day funds and no capacity to make up for a lack of federal disaster recovery funds — without RAISING TAXES!”

Holdeman added, “Reducing the number of federal disaster declarations will be difficult and its implementation will be impossible! All Presidents, not just the one we have today, will ignore such a policy when it becomes politically expedient to do so.”

Nevertheless, in the leaked audio recording of Hamilton’s comments, the FEMA administrator said to expect changes to get underway in earnest “in the next six months.”

If there’s a Democratic Congress next year, it’s a safe bet that the administration will get meaningful pushback long before such plans are implemented. Watch this space.

The post FEMA chief tells states they shouldn’t count on disaster aid under Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

A bipartisan group of nearly two dozen House members is urging President Trump to ask tech mogul Elon Musk to give Ukraine access to Starlink satellite systems to hunt for missile launchers inside Russia, according to a letter sent Wednesday and obtained exclusively by The Hill.  The signatories included seven House Republicans alongside 16 Democrats,…