MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said President Donald Trump’s disregard for court orders has turned the nation’s justice system into a laughingstock.

“The Trump administration is making the courts look like fools,” he said.

With the midterm elections quickly approaching, Weissmann warned it is time for America’s judges to work “faster and smarter” before it’s too late.

“The administration, over and over again, is doing things unilaterally without permission and, at times, in violation of court orders,” the former Justice Department official explained.

According to an analysis from The Associated Press earlier this year, district court judges have found the second Trump administration violated or failed to follow federal court orders in at least 31 lawsuits and in more than 250 individual immigration cases.

When the court does intervene, sometimes it’s already too late, Weissmann said, pointing to the administration’s use of taxpayer dollars to run ads for the president. When a federal judge blocked that effort, it was only after nearly $22 million had already been spent.

“Tens of millions of people saw those ads, paid for by you and me,” he said.

Weissmann argued that Trump’s DOJ has effectively taken a “do now and ask questions later” approach to the law.

“The court only belatedly says, ‘Hey, don’t do that.’ But the damage is already done, and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.

The former federal prosecutor said it was time for courts to be “faster and smarter” in responding to Trump’s blatantly illegal moves, and he cautioned against setting “a permission structure for this administration,” especially as the election approaches.

“What I am worried about is: The midterms are coming up, and is this going to be a government that goes ahead and seizes ballots with the idea that we can break the chain of custody, we can make it impossible to count votes? And maybe later a court will say, ‘You shouldn’t have done that,’ but the damage will have been done,” he explained.

“There has to be a deterrent,” Weissmann warned. “And courts have to be faster and smarter to not get outplayed.”

You can watch Weissmann’s full comments in the clip above.

The post ‘Faster and smarter’: Legal analyst warns courts they can’t let Trump outplay them appeared first on MS NOW.

Katie Zacharia stepped down from her role as White House press secretary this Friday, after U.S. President Donald Trump suggested she resign following criticism she faced during her first week on the job, an official confirmed to EFE.

RELATED:

Katie Zacharia Debuts as White House Press Secretary

She is in the process of leaving the position of press secretary, the source stated, without specifying whether she resigned or was dismissed. Her departure comes just five days after she assumed the role on Monday, October 12, replacing Karoline Leavitt, who left the position in August to focus on her family.

The president indicated that he would leave that decision up to her and noted that he would speak with the press secretary. The White House did not officially announce the departure, although government sources confirmed it to outlets such as CNN and Fox News.

Zacharia’s first appearance before the press, on Tuesday, October 13, lasted barely 14 minutes. During the press briefing, she read much of her statement and answered only three questions—all of which came from conservative media outlets.

The official also struggled to answer certain questions, including one regarding the sharing of intelligence with Ukraine. Her performance drew criticism and led to increased scrutiny of her professional background.

Her appointment came as a surprise in Washington, following weeks of speculation about who would succeed Leavitt. According to an official cited by CNN, the White House faced challenges in recruiting higher-profile figures, as several potential candidates had previously been critical of Trump.

Presidential aides repeatedly narrowed down the list of candidates, ruling some out after discovering past unfavorable comments they had made about the president—which automatically disqualified them.

Zacharia’s departure marks one of the shortest tenures in the White House press office in recent memory, leaving the position of presidential press secretary vacant once again.

Donald Trump and the MAGA movement’s grip on white voters appears to be slipping, and in an effort to reverse that trend, it seems Vice President JD Vance has designated himself the pied piper of racist rage.

Numerous polls this year have spotlighted Trump’s declining support among white voters — particularly, white working-class voters who’ve been key to his and his party’s political success. Amid this trend, Vance — in speech after speech — has resorted to rhetoric seemingly designed to groom the white American psyche so that white voters turn their ire on nonwhite people rather than on Trump and the Republican Party.

The latest example came during a rally Vance hosted in Michigan on Thursday, in which he suggested Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is resentful of certain people and places because they’re “too white, too proud or too American.” He called El-Sayed a “weasel who should shut his mouth and show a little gratitude to the country that gave him everything.”

Vance has returned to this well numerous times over the past year as Trump’s corrupt business dealings, economically destructive tariffs and his deadly war with Iran have turned off some in the MAGA base. You can see plenty of other examples of Vance launching similar appeals to white bigots — including here, here and in the following clip from last December, when Vance told an audience of right-wing Turning Point USA affiliates that they no longer had to “apologize for being white.”

Back in August, the vice president gave an interview to Fox News suggesting that white people who support El-Sayed hate themselves. And keep in mind that all of this is coming from the No. 2 leader of a Republican Party that has spent years frothing at the mouth about liberals supposedly weaponizing “identity politics.” The question is whether white voters choose to indulge in what I’ve previously described on-air as the “racist slop” being offered up by the MAGA movement.

And here, history can be informative. White supremacist movements and organizations in years past — including the Ku Klux Klan — have all sought to unify white Americans around a single racial identity. This trend is explored in films like the documentary “White with Fear,” which shines light on the history of right-wing, racist fearmongering in the United States. White supremacist groups have historically managed to convince some white people to fall in line behind them, but they’ve also faced white backlash as some of the same people have been awakened to these groups’ corrupt ways and self-serving bigotry.

And despite Vance’s efforts, a similar outcome seems to be in play for the white supremacy-boosting MAGA movement as well.

The post Vance desperately targets white voters as Trump’s grip slips appeared first on MS NOW.

On Tuesday afternoon, after Katie Zacharia’s disastrous first briefing as White House press secretary, a White House official told MS NOW, “She needs to get much better, fast, otherwise she’ll break Scaramucci’s record,” set, of course, by Anthony Scaramucci, who served as Donald Trump’s communications director for 11 days in 2017.

Three days later, she did what few thought possible by breaking that record. As a truly brutal first week neared its end, MS NOW reported:

After a turbulent five days in the role, Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary, two White House officials familiar with her departure told MS NOW on Friday.

The details — whether Zacharia voluntarily left her role or was directly fired — are still unclear. On Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters that he asked Zacharia to “reconsider” her role.

After Richard Nixon resigned in 1974, thus elevating Gerald Ford to the presidency, the Michigan Republican needed a new White House team. Ford tapped Jerald terHorst, a veteran journalist, to be the press secretary, and he seemed like a perfectly sensible choice.

The arrangement, however, did not last. A month into Ford’s tenure, the new president issued a controversial pardon to Nixon, and terHorst, unwilling to defend the decision, resigned. His tenure — just 31 days — was the shortest of any White House press secretary ever.

A half-century later, Zacharia’s time in the office lasted roughly one-sixth the length of terHorst’s tenure.

During a brief Q&A with reporters just outside the White House on Friday afternoon, the president made it sound as if he were doing his newly minted press secretary a favor.

“It’s not an easy job, and I think she was really treated very unfairly,” Trump said, adding, “I told her, ‘I think you’re better off being happy, and I’m not sure you can ever be happy in this job.’”

Asked whether Zacharia would continue to serve in his administration, the Republican said, “Yeah. In some form — but maybe a more pleasant form.”

The development marks a stunning turn of events, including the exposure of Zacharia’s extensive record of peddling unhinged conspiratorial nonsense via social media, her misleading claims about her legal credentials, her work at a business that she described as “sort of a pyramid scheme” and her concession that she tried and failed to pass the California Bar Exam.

The president is already trying to blame this remarkable fiasco on the news organizations that reported accurate information, but as the dust settles, Trump and his team should at least try to consider a few lessons.

First, meritocracies are good, and hiring random people because the president saw them on television is bad.

Second, some routine vetting of prominent White House officials is a standard and responsible move.

And third, picking an unqualified press secretary three weeks before nationwide elections, having her move across the country and then throwing her into a difficult role without any meaningful preparation is a recipe for inevitable failure.

Put another way, there’s a fair amount of blame to go around for this humiliating debacle, which has managed to make the entire White House appear even more incompetent.

The post As Katie Zacharia’s tenure ends after just 5 days, here are some lessons for Team Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

• President Donald Trump said he told Katie Zacharia to reconsider the White House press secretary job.
• Shortly after, a White House official said she is "transitioning out" of the role.
• She lasted five days in the role after mounting scrutiny over her legal credentials.

Embattled White House press secretary Katie Zacharia is out of the job after just five days, making her the shortest-tenured person to hold the role in history.

President Donald Trump said on Friday that he told Zacharia to reconsider taking on the high-profile job.

Shortly after his statements, The New York Times and CNN reported that Zacharia had been fired after less than a week in the role. A White House official told Business Insider that she is "transitioning out" of the role.

"I said to Katie just two minutes ago, I said, 'Katie, you know, you don't have to do this if you don't want,'" Trump told reporters at the White House, adding that Zacharia responded that the job is "a lot tougher" than she thought.

"I said to her, 'Honestly, if I were you, I'd reconsider. You think about it, but I would reconsider,'" Trump said.

A conservative commentator who has repeatedly described herself as a lawyer, Zacharia made her White House press briefing debut on Tuesday and quickly came under intense scrutiny over her legal credentials.

She was widely panned after the roughly 14-minute briefing, most of which was spent on reading from prepared remarks. After the briefing, while alongside Trump, Zacharia was asked which state she passed the bar exam in and replied, "When I moved to China," raising eyebrows.

National headlines soon followed reports that Zacharia had not been licensed to practice law in any US jurisdiction.

On Thursday, Zacharia said she took the bar exam but failed, and never retook it.

Trump told reporters on Friday that Zacharia had been treated "very badly" and "very unfairly" by the media.

"She's been treated very rough, and she's a nice person, very nice person," the president said. "I've watched her for years on television, but I said, 'Is this for you, Katie? Because, honestly, you don't need this.'"

"She's been treated, I would say, very nastily," he said.

A rocky start

Following her first briefing, CNN reported that "several White House officials" were questioning how long she could remain in the role.

The news of Zacharia's ouster means Trump will be searching for a top spokesperson again after Karoline Leavitt left the role in August.

Previously, Jonathan Daniels held the record for shortest tenure. Daniels served as White House press secretary for just 19 days before President Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office. (He briefly served in an interim capacity for President Harry Truman.)

In the modern era, press secretaries have historically served roughly a year in the role, a fact that CNN noted when Trump's first-ever White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, departed after 182 days in August 2017.

During the first Trump administration, Anthony Scaramucci famously spent just 11 days as the White House communications director before he was booted from the position.

Scaramucci, known as "The Mooch," weighed in on Zacharia's departure in an X post, writing, "Records are made to be broken. But I take no pleasure in other people's pain."

Before becoming press secretary, Zacharia worked for Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social, and served a brief stint at the Department of Homeland Security.

Compared to her predecessors, her résumé was void of the campaign and Capitol Hill experience that previous White House press secretaries brought to the challenging role.

After a turbulent five days in the role, Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary, two White House officials familiar with her departure told MS NOW on Friday. The sources were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

It was not immediately clear whether Zacharia resigned or was fired. On Friday, President Donald Trump told reporters that he told Zacharia to “reconsider” her role.

Zacharia delivered her first and only press briefing on Tuesday, which lasted just over 14 minutes. She took just three questions — all from conservative media outlets — and failed to answer the first policy question she was asked. She defended her performance in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday, telling him she had “very little prep time.”

In the days after her appointment, questions swirled about her past experience, including her past references to being a lawyer. Though she obtained a law degree from Pepperdine University in 2011, she said this week that she did not pass the bar exam. She said she did not intend to mislead about her legal credentials, telling Real America’s Voice that it was a “miscommunication.”

Responding to a reporter on Friday who asked if he wanted Zacharia to “stick around ultimately,” Trump said he planned to talk to her when he returned to the White House from Georgia.

“I just said, ‘I think you should reconsider because I think the press is really being very unfair,'” he said.

Trump announced Zacharia as his new press secretary on Oct. 9, filling a vacancy left by Karoline Leavitt, who departed in August to spend more time with her two young children.

Former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, who was fired after just 11 days in the role during Trump’s first administration, posted on X following the news of Zacharia’s departure: “Records are made to be broken. But I take no pleasure in other people’s pain.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The post Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary after just 5 days appeared first on MS NOW.

Polling suggests that concerns about corruption and healthcare costs are top of mind for most voters as Election Day approaches. A Fox News poll released this week showed large majorities of voters listed both in the top five issues they were “extremely” or “very” concerned about. A new report about President Donald Trump’s self-enrichment by way of the pharmaceutical industry underscores the uniquely awful political predicament Republicans have created for themselves by wedding their party to one of the most corrupt administrations in American history.

Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee previously spotlighted the ways that Trump’s stock investments in the oil and gas industries have benefited from his destructive geopolitical agenda, including his deadly war with Iran. Now, the committee is out with a new report on the ways Trump’s stock investments in the pharmaceutical industry have benefited from provisions of the (ridiculously) so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans forced through last year.

According to the new report:

As Americans face sky-high health care costs, President Trump and Congressional Republicans passed into law last year a new giveaway to Big Pharma that enables many pharmaceutical companies to keep charging seniors exorbitant prices for cancer treatments and other medications. This measure — which blocks the Medicare program from negotiating lower prices for several high-cost drugs — will add around $9 billion to the deficit.

The report cites financial disclosure forms that show that in 2025, “Trump held as much as $39.1 million in stock in the same Big Pharma companies that directly benefited from the giveaway that he and Congressional Republicans devised.” And that “these companies reported at least $54 billion in U.S. sales of drugs that benefitted from the carveout in 2025, a 13 percent increase from the year before.”

Trump has made more stock trades since returning to office than everyone in Congress combined. The White House has routinely said that these trades are handled by third parties over which Trump has no influence, denying allegations of corruption or conflicts of interest.

But it seems the majority of Americans aren’t convinced that the self-described “freaking genius” president has truly extricated his personal business dealings from industries that benefit from his policies: A recent AP-NORC poll found that 60% of adults think Trump has either illegally or unethically profited from the presidency.

The post The ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ opened the door to benefit Big Pharma — and Trump appeared first on MS NOW.

MS NOW’s Joe Scarborough criticized President Donald Trump for condemning Ukraine’s renewed strikes on Russian oil sites while saying little about Moscow’s continued violations of his energy ceasefire.

“These events are shocking — even by Trumpian standards,” Scarborough said.

In an interview with Newsmax on Thursday, Trump called Ukraine’s decision to resume drone strikes on Russian oil refineries “a disgrace” and said the attacks would drive up global oil prices. (Trump has repeatedly blamed the Russia-Ukraine war for surging energy costs, though experts say the U.S. war with Iran has had a greater impact.)

“I’m not a big fan of Zelensky,” Trump said of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, adding that he found him “more difficult to deal with” than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Reacting to Trump’s comments, Scarborough said Friday on “Morning Joe” that he “just can’t get Ukraine off my mind and the absolute betrayal of Ukraine.”

The MS NOW host cast Trump’s criticism of Ukraine as the latest in a series of moves that he argued favor Moscow. Last week, Trump announced the United States would lift sanctions on Russian diesel exports. Scarborough said the agreement would help “pump billions of dollars into Vladimir Putin’s killing machines.”

He also cited Reuters’ report that an order to limit Ukraine’s access to SpaceX’s Starshield satellite service came from inside the White House. The temporary restriction disrupted Ukrainian drone operations, according to the report. A White House official denied that Trump ordered the Pentagon to limit the service.

“That’s all in Donald Trump’s hands,” Scarborough continued. “He’s the one in charge of this.” He said he believed Trump was “doing everything he can to help” Putin “win this war.”

According to the “Morning Joe” co-host, Trump has “been telling us who he is since 2015” when it comes to his feelings toward Putin.

“He’s always been with Russia,” he said. “Long before this war in 2015, while he was running for president, he was talking about his great admiration for Vladimir Putin.”

Scarborough also recalled what he called Trump’s “shameful, pathetic, weak performance” at his 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki, during which Trump publicly cast doubt on U.S. intelligence agency findings on Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Since Trump returned to the White House, Scarborough said, “we’ve heard more of the same.” He said Trump’s advisers would share responsibility for the consequences of the administration’s approach to Ukraine.

“Everybody around him that has anything to do with this policy, this betrayal of the West, this betrayal of Western freedom, this betrayal of Ukraine, this will be marked upon their legacies for as long as they live,” he said.

You can watch Scarborough’s full comments in the clip at the top of the page.

The post Joe Scarborough slams Trump’s ‘betrayal’ of Ukraine: ‘He’s always been with Russia’ appeared first on MS NOW.

A couple of months ago, Donald Trump appeared on a conservative radio show and said that “a lot of people” wanted to see the president pardon himself in his first term.

“I had the absolute right to do it,” he said. “Instead, I fought it through the courts and won.”

While that wasn’t an entirely accurate summary of recent history — Trump, who was convicted of several felonies in New York, only “won” when the federal criminal cases against him ended upon his return to the White House, not because they were adjudicated in his favor — the president’s rhetoric about his “absolute right” to pardon himself stood out.

This week, he returned to the issue during an interview with Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty.

Asked specifically whether he’s “seriously considering a self-pardon” before he leaves office, the president initially hedged, saying he’s done “nothing wrong,” before adding, “I’m allowed to do a self-pardon. I’m allowed to pardon. … The pardon is very powerful. I know that. They say it’s the most powerful thing a president has, the power of pardon.”

As my MS NOW colleague Jordan Rubin explained in detail just last week, whether presidents can actually pardon themselves is a matter of some controversy. Ahead of Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a memo concluding that presidents can’t pardon themselves, though OLC opinions are not binding on the courts, and the matter has never been tested — at least not yet.

But also of interest was the other point Trump made as part of the same exchange.

On the topic of pardons, the Republican went on to say, “I can tell you this, I don’t want to see my people go through — because these people are lunatics on the, on the left — I don’t want to see people that work for me go through years of nonsense, hire lawyers and everything else, all for nothing.”

This came a few weeks after Trump also told Time magazine that he’s prepared to issue pardons to members of his administration.

Time will tell whether he follows through, and just as notably, just how many members of his team are considered for presidential clemency. But that Trump keeps making comments like these might very have a real impact in the White House and throughout the executive branch: The president is effectively letting a small army of political appointees know that, no matter what they do as part of their duties, he’s inclined to hand them a pardon, whether or not they deserve one.

Systemic government corruption is already a problem in the Trump era. The signal he’s sending to his team is likely to make matters worse.

The post ‘I’m allowed to do a self-pardon’: Trump opens the door to pardons for staff and himself appeared first on MS NOW.

For more than a year, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has acted as one of the nation’s top diplomats, exercising significant authority on behalf of the U.S. government on conflicts involving foreign hostilities, without undergoing the Senate confirmation process or filing a single financial disclosure. If you’re asking how that’s legal, it’s not.

Kushner is a figure of great influence on our national security and foreign policy apparatus. He has been tasked with meeting directly with heads of state, negotiating peace deals and representing the United States in efforts to end the president’s war in Iran, which has put our troops in harm’s way and exacerbated the affordability crisis here at home. My organization, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, just filed a lawsuit asking the court to block Kushner from continuing to perform his outsized role without Senate confirmation and compel him to file his required financial disclosures.

A White House spokesperson said in a statement that “[Kushner’s] personal business activities have nothing to do with his diplomatic engagements, which he conducts on a volunteer basis at the President’s request and while paying his own expenses,” while an attorney representing Kushner dismissed CREW’s lawsuit as “without merit.”

The American public, through its elected senators and government officials, has the right to evaluate whether individuals are qualified and meet the ethical standards to hold powerful positions in our government. Kushner and the Trump administration have denied us that right, and that is both unacceptable and illegal.

The Constitution’s Appointments Clause requires that individuals who hold continuing government positions and are afforded substantial levels of authority be vetted and approved by the Senate before they take office. In my prior role as a senior counsel to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I helped conduct this vetting. It involved poring over a nominee’s background and experience, reviewing their past conduct, soliciting opinions on the nominee from outside experts, reviewing their financial records and interviewing them with other committee staff.

Nominees often also meet with senators to answer questions in private, are vetted by the FBI and sit for a public hearing in front of senators and the public before the committee of jurisdiction. Then the full chamber votes to approve or reject their appointment. In addition to that rigorous and multifaceted process, the Ethics in Government Act requires that individuals nominated to such positions file public financial disclosures so that the public and Congress can assess and monitor potential conflicts of interest prior to confirmation and while they serve in the role.

These laws exist to ensure that people granted substantial authority and power in our government are deserving of that power and maintain their ethical obligations to put Americans’ interests first. Kushner and the Trump administration have decided to sidestep this process.

Play

Fmr. Amb. to Russia slams Trump criticizing Ukraine: ‘He’s siding with an imperial dictator!’ October 16, 2026 / 08:45

Many officials with less power undergo more scrutiny than Kushner. For example, ambassadors who represent the U.S. in just one country — like the recently ousted Kimberly Guilfoyle — are required to be confirmed by the Senate and file public financial disclosures. Without any such vetting, Kushner has met with the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, as well as leaders from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and has been involved in peace negotiations surrounding Gaza, Iran and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Trump has not appointed ambassadors to Russia or Ukraine, as well as Qatar, or the UAE. Those positions remain vacant while Kushner exercises at least some of the powers and duties traditionally assigned to those positions, functionally dodging the Appointments Clause and the required vetting for confirmation.

Kushner is also an atypical diplomat. In addition to being Trump’s son-in-law, the seeming overlap between his government portfolio and business ventures has led to widespread questions. As senior adviser to the president in the first Trump administration, Kushner was required to file financial disclosures, which showed that he and his wife, Ivanka Trump, made between $172 million and $640 million in outside income while working in the White House. Soon after the first Trump administration ended, Kushner secured billions of dollars for his investment firm from the very governments, including Saudi Arabia, he had worked closely with in his official capacity. He continues to run that firm while he engages with foreign leaders who have invested with his company.

While Kushner has occasionally addressed these concerns publicly, he has not done so in Senate testimony under oath, nor provided appropriate documentation of his finances. As is the case with any nominee, his word alone is not good enough. Kushner’s lawyer claims that government ethics officials confirmed that this arrangement complies with applicable ethics requirements, but the Trump administration has routinely blessed ethically dubious conduct by the president and his family. In the first Trump administration, Kushner was granted a security clearance against the reported recommendation of career security specialists who raised concerns about his foreign entanglements.

Kushner is making decisions that affect everything from our safety and position on the world stage to the price of gas and groceries at home. This power, whether or not he has a formal title or receives a government salary, makes him subject to the Appointments Clause and the Ethics in Government Act. The very least we deserve is for Kushner to abide by the law — to be publicly vetted and transparent about his financial entanglements. He has thus far refused to do that, and we refuse to stand idly by.

The post Jared Kushner has no right to be playing diplomat appeared first on MS NOW.

As part of a tough re-election campaign in Maine, incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins has emphasized on countless occasions that she’s willing to defy President Donald Trump and other GOP leaders. But while there’s some truth to that, the senator’s critics have long emphasized the asterisk that comes with that record.

The New York Times took a closer look at her voting record, which shows that Collins has broken with her party more than any other Republican senator. That said, the same record “reveals that her defections … have rarely thwarted the president during his second term.”

In other words, the longtime GOP senator has demonstrated a willingness to break ranks, except when her vote might actually affect the outcome. Or, as the Times’ report put it, “one of the most dominant and long-running lines of attack against her” is that Collins “only defies the president when it doesn’t matter.”

On Thursday night, in her fourth and final debate against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson, the Maine Republican was presented with a clear opportunity to prove her critics wrong. It did not go well.

A moderator asked Collins, “Can you name a time when you voted against your party and President Trump where it actually changed the outcome significantly?”

The senator began by saying there were “several examples,” though she specifically pointed to one: Early last year, Collins said, she helped organize an effort to defeat Pete Hegseth’s defense secretary nomination, though her effort ultimately didn’t work and the unqualified former Fox News host was confirmed.

“So that didn’t change the outcome,” the moderator replied.

Remember, Collins has faced one specific criticism throughout her re-election bid, and it was highlighted by The New York Times in a front-page article published this week. The senator and her team had plenty of time to come up with examples (any example!) to prove her critics wrong.

But she couldn’t. Then, presented with the opportunity and platform, Collins flubbed it, effectively proving the underlying point.

Whether Jackson and his party turn the debate exchange into a new campaign ad remains to be seen.

The post Pressed on her work with Trump, Maine’s Collins trips over key part of her record appeared first on MS NOW.

• President Donald Trump chose Katie Zacharia to serve as the new White House press secretary.
• Five days later, a White House official said that she is "transitioning out" of the role.
• She succeeded Karoline Leavitt, who left the job in August.

Katie Zacharia held her first briefing as White House press secretary on Tuesday, taking over the role previously held by Karoline Leavitt.

Days later, a White House official confirmed to Business Insider that she is "transitioning out" of the role after Trump said that he told her to reconsider.

Zacharia was the second press secretary to serve in Trump's second term, and the sixth across his two non-consecutive terms. Leavitt left the job in August to spend more time with her young children.

In a Truth Social post announcing his hiring of Zacharia, President Donald Trump wrote that "She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning," adding that "She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA!"

Zacharia did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider on Friday, after her departure was announced.

Here's what to know about her.

What was Katie Zacharia doing before this?

Zacharia previously worked as a senior communications advisor at Trump Media and Technology Group, which runs Truth Social, a White House official confirmed to Business Insider.

Zacharia previously worked as a spokesperson for former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem at the Department of Homeland Security, and as a commentator for Fox News and Newsmax.

Her LinkedIn profile also indicates that she serves as general counsel for the conservative nonprofit Fix California, and served as a White House intern in 2006, during President George W. Bush's second term.

Is Katie Zacharia a lawyer?

Zacharia earned a bachelor's degree in political science and government from Pepperdine University and a law degree from Pepperdine Caruso School of Law.

She has described herself as a lawyer, but she confirmed to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday that she sat for the California bar exam but did not pass it or retake it.

"I had already preregistered for the bar exam," she said. "Basically, during the summer, I knew I would be living in China and the results of the bar were inconsequential, and I sat for it because I didn't want to have a withdrawal status."

Zacharia's LinkedIn profile lists her as working as an associate at the Beijing law firm Zhong Lun from August 2011 to June 2013.

Zacharia added that she "consulted attorneys and legal professionals" to confirm that she could call herself a lawyer and offer legal analysis on cable news since she holds a law degree and had "actual substantive legal experience."

Zacharia told Business Insider in a statement that she "practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials."

The White House referred Business Insider to Zacharia's comments on Fox News.

Who is Katie Zacharia's husband?

Zacharia is married to film producer Tyler Zacharia, who has produced movies such as "Young Washington" and "David" with Angel Studios, a production company specializing in faith-based films.

He also served as an executive producer of the 2019 movie "The Irishman" starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, according to his IMDb page.

They wed in 2011.

Does Katie Zacharia have children?

Zacharia and her husband share four children, ages 12, 10, 8, and 6.

At her first press briefing, when Zacharia was asked about balancing work and motherhood, she said her family was planning to move from California to Washington, DC, so she could be present with them while working in the White House. She also called Trump "the most family-friendly president we've ever had."

"The fact that he knew I had four kids, and he knew that this job would be demanding, and still placed his trust in me, shows that I know I'm capable of being able to step up to that," she said.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

During a town hall event on CNN this week, Democratic Senate hopeful James Talarico voiced a sentiment that was well received by attendees: “We have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis.”

The message has become increasingly common as the midterm election cycle has unfolded. Indeed, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, in particular, has built much of his 2026 candidacy on the proposition that corruption isn’t only a major national issue, it’s also the principal cause for the problems plaguing regular Americans in their everyday lives. “You aren’t the problem. Neither are your fellow Americans,” Ossoff routinely tells Georgians. “Corruption is why things don’t work for ordinary people.”

There’s fresh evidence that the argument is resonating with the public.

A Gallup poll released last month found that 89% of American adults believe that government corruption in the United States is widespread — up 10 points from a year ago, and 30 points from a Gallup survey conducted in 2006. Earlier this week, The Associated Press released the results of its latest national poll, which similarly found that most Americans believe that Donald Trump “is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than helping people like them.”

But it was the latest Fox News poll that arguably surprised people most. The editorial board of The Washington Post noted:

President Donald Trump’s ouster of Kimberly Guilfoyle as ambassador to Greece this week reflected a belated recognition by the White House political team that corruption is a galvanizing issue in the midterms.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday indicates that corruption has become voters’ top concern, edging out inflation and gas prices. Six in 10 respondents said they’re “extremely concerned” about corruption. … The Fox News finding isn’t an outlier. An Economist-YouGov poll last month showed that most registered voters think Trump is corrupt. A Reuters poll in August revealed that almost 7 in 10 Americans — including about half of Republicans — believe Trump’s private business interests influence his presidential decisions.

These public attitudes are based on a lot more than just cynical assumptions. On a nearly daily basis, Americans are confronted with a fresh round of allegations surrounding the president and his team. “The cesspit of corruption that is Donald Trump’s presidency is finally getting the attention it deserves,” economist Paul Krugman recently observed. “It’s about time. … The level of corruption that Trump has engaged in and enabled in others is completely unprecedented — self-dealing that, as Trump would say, is like nothing anybody has ever seen before.”

This week, MS NOW host Catherine Rampell wrote a column for The Bulwark in which she added, “Donald Trump is robbing Americans blind.” The headline on her piece read, “Just. So. Much. Corruption.”

Voters’ attitudes on this should send a signal to policymakers about their post-election priorities. We’ll learn in a few weeks whether Democrats can win a majority in either (or both) of Congress’ chambers; but if they do, some will no doubt make the case that the party should focus almost entirely on kitchen-table issues.

And while such a strategy would make sense, the midterms are making clear that there’s a direct link between corruption and affordability — and there’s a real public appetite for accountability and reform.

The post Democrats have made corruption a key midterm issue. Polls show voters agree. appeared first on MS NOW.

• Questions about now-former press secretary Katie Zacharia's legal credentials put résumé claims in the spotlight.
• Recruiters share how they've caught candidates inventing jobs, faking degrees, or exaggerating their past.
• Nearly 4 out of 10 Americans admit to putting inaccurate information on their résumés, a survey found.

For corporate recruiters like Martha Heller, asking questions about a job candidate's credentials — like the kind that swirled around now-former White House press secretary Katie Zacharia this week — is par for the course.

When a background check failed to verify an executive candidate's college degree a few years ago, Heller inquired about the discrepancy. The candidate, who was being considered for a job at a California insurance company, claimed a flood at his school had destroyed the records from the year he graduated. Skeptical, Heller called the college and learned that no such event had occurred.

"It was like detective work," she said, adding that the problem wasn't whether the candidate had a college degree. It was that he misrepresented his education and then doubled down when questioned, she said.

White House controversy

Zacharia's self-described legal career has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent days following her appointment as White House press secretary. When asked by a reporter what state she passed the bar exam in, she responded, "When I moved to China."

Business Insider reviewed records for all 50 states and the District of Columbia and found no evidence that Zacharia had been admitted to any state bar in the US after she graduated with a law degree from Pepperdine University in 2011.

Zacharia later defended calling herself a lawyer, saying that after failing the bar exam the first time, she did not take it a second time. On Friday, a White House official confirmed that she is "transitioning out" of the role.

Vetting résumés

One of a recruiter's jobs is to vet a candidate's background. Research suggests it's not uncommon for candidates to exaggerate their credentials.

Some 37% of Americans said they've put inaccurate information on their résumés, according to a June report from Novorésumé, an online résumé-building service. Nearly 7% said they'd claimed a degree, certification, or other credential they didn't possess, while 6.1% said they'd listed a job that didn't exist or was substantially fabricated. The findings are based on a May survey of 2,000 US adults.

Brian Fink, a managing partner at tech recruiting firm The ReWork Group, can relate. Last year, a candidate for a senior marketing job at a cybersecurity company was on the verge of being hired when a background check failed to confirm that he'd worked for a company listed as a past employer on his résumé and LinkedIn profile.

Fink said he gave the candidate an opportunity to provide evidence supporting his claim, but the man refused.

"I had no choice but to rescind the offer," said Fink. "If you're willing to lie about your education, what else are you willing to lie about?"

Background checks

Recruiters typically wait until a job candidate is a finalist to conduct a background check because the task is time-consuming and costly. They also tend to hold off contacting references early on to avoid tipping off the person's current employer that they're job hunting. Early in the process, though, some recruiters will look for potential red flags by probing inconsistencies or gaps in candidates' work histories.

Doug Johnson, CEO of executive search firm Valor Partners, said he asks candidates at the end of an interview if there's anything embarrassing or potentially damaging in their past that might come up during a background or reference check. He tells them that disclosing it now gives them a chance to address the issue with a prospective employer, while discovering it later could cost them the job.

Most candidates say there's nothing to be concerned about, said Johnson. But some subsequently fall off the radar, and others suddenly report receiving a raise or finding a better opportunity elsewhere.

"It worries people who have a conscience," he said.

Update: October 16, 2026 — This article has been updated to reflect Friday's news that Zacharia is out of the role.

In the months leading up to Texas’ Republican U.S. Senate primary, the party was divided into a couple of camps. On one side was incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, who enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of most GOP leaders and their aligned super PAC, and who was generally seen as a safe choice who would fare well in a general election.

On the other side was the senator’s intraparty challenger, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, who enjoyed support from the party’s MAGA base, despite being the most scandal-plagued candidate of his generation, and who was generally seen as an enormous risk.

There were reports that Donald Trump was tempted to play it safe, before he ultimately endorsed Paxton, who cruised to an easy primary victory. The results haven’t exactly gone the way the president likely hoped.

Over the past several weeks, a variety of high-quality polls have been conducted in the Lone Star State, and not one of them has shown Paxton leading Democratic state Rep. James Talarico. This has generated a fair amount of panic in GOP circles, where the idea of losing a Senate seat in Texas had been largely unthinkable as the year got underway.

With this in mind, Trump is now taking a predictable step: He’s trying to avoid blame for a possible electoral disaster. Indeed, the president published a lengthy tirade to his social media platform on Thursday afternoon in which he tried to pre-blame Republicans he doesn’t like for a defeat that hasn’t happened yet. From the online rant:

Sadly, and very stupidly, John Cornyn, and his Liddle’ Buddy, Super RINO, Karl Rove, are doing everything possible to make it hard for Ken Paxton, the Greatest Attorney General in the History of Texas, and one of the Best in the United States, to win the upcoming Midterm Election. … They are hurting Texas and, more importantly, hurting the United States of America!

If Ken Paxton loses, it will be because of WEAK and INEFFECTIVE Political Hacks like John Cornyn and Karl Rove, who have ineffectively opposed me for my entire political career.

As a factual matter, it’s true that Cornyn has done effectively nothing to help Paxton since their primary, but the suggestion that the senator is actively undermining his party’s nominee is difficult to take seriously (leaving aside the obvious contradiction of blaming a Paxton loss on “ineffective” opponents). The state attorney general’s troubles are his own fault, not Cornyn’s.

But these details are less striking than the implication that if Trump genuinely believed Paxton was well positioned to win, the president wouldn’t be looking to shift the blame for this race away from himself.

This is not to say that Talarico definitely will win — we should find out in 19 days — and with far-right megadonors throwing an enormous amount of money at Texas, it’s still possible that Elon Musk and company will successfully buy the seat for Paxton.

But Trump’s angry missive does not speak well of Paxton’s chances.

The post Fearing Ken Paxton’s defeat in Texas, Trump tries pre-blaming John Cornyn appeared first on MS NOW.

Una scivolata, una signora a terra, un’oca con le ali spalancate. Bastano pochi secondi a Fiume Veneto (Pordenone) per far scattare l’allarme degli animalisti, che temono per la sorte dell’oca Gastone, il palmipede diventato da anni la mascotte del centro. Lo riporta Il Gazzettino.

Qualche giorno fa la donna si è imbattuta nell’animale mentre cercava cibo lungo la sponda del fiume. Gastone ha aperto le ali, come fanno abitualmente gli acquatici. Un gesto che la signora avrebbe letto come una minaccia. Nessun contatto, nessun beccata: la paura, però, le ha fatto perdere l’equilibrio ed è finita per terra.

Un episodio senza conseguenze gravi, ma sufficiente a mettere in allerta la Lav di Pordenone. Il timore è che si ripeta lo schema già visto con la cornacchia di Pordenone, finita nel mirino e a rischio abbattimento.

Gastone, del resto, in paese è un habitué. Da anni risale la sponda del fiume per farsi rifocillare dai passanti e dai commercianti della zona, che non gli hanno mai fatto mancare il pasto. Tanto da diventare una presenza familiare per l’intera comunità.

L'articolo L’oca Gastone spalanca le ali e la signora scivola per terra: il paese si divide nel dibattito. La Lav interviene: “Comportamenti naturali, senza alcuna connotazione aggressiva” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

For White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, the past week has clearly been something of a whirlwind. It was, after all, just seven days ago when Donald Trump announced that the former conservative commentator would serve as his new chief spokesperson. Quite a bit has happened since.

Monday, Oct. 12: As Zacharia begins her tenure in the West Wing, multiple news organizations report on her extensive record of peddling unhinged conspiratorial nonsense via social media.

Tuesday, Oct. 13: Zacharia holds her first press briefing (with an emphasis on “brief”) and leaves little doubt that she is wholly unprepared for the job. One White House official tells MS NOW, “She needs to get much better, fast, otherwise she’ll break Scaramucci’s record,” referring to Anthony Scaramucci, who served as Trump’s communications director for 11 days in 2017.

Tuesday, Oct. 13: After her embarrassing train wreck, Zacharia, who has repeatedly identified herself as an attorney, is asked in which state she had passed the bar exam. The press secretary responds that she had “moved to China,” which didn’t make a lot of sense.

Wednesday, Oct. 14: The Campaign for Accountability files a bar complaint in California against the press secretary (Zacharia’s home is in the Golden State), alleging that she misrepresented her legal credentials.

Wednesday, Oct. 14: When Wired magazine asks Zacharia about her work with Beachbody, a fitness company that ran a multilevel marketing operation, she describes the business as “sort of a pyramid scheme.”

Wednesday, Oct. 14: A partner at the law firm Zacharia worked at in China tells The New York Times that it often hired foreigners for language assistance and to help Chinese staff understand foreign business culture. Though Zacharia claimed in the past to have worked on “international transaction law” at the firm, the partner tells the Times her role at the firm would have likely been similar to a paid internship.

Thursday, Oct. 15: Zacharia sits down with a radical conspiracy theorist for an interview on a conservative media outlet called Real America’s Voice. She concedes that she tried and failed to pass the California bar exam. This would be less of a problem were it not for Trump repeatedly mocking those who have failed bar exams as evidence of being unintelligent.

In the same interview, she blames her embarrassing briefing from earlier in the week on the fact that the briefing was in the morning, the day after a holiday.

Thursday, Oct. 15: Zacharia wraps up the day with an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, in which she continues to struggle.

Friday, Oct. 16: Zacharia returns to Fox News, where she’s asked if there’s anything she’d like to clean up from her troubled interview the night before.

I think it’s fair to say her first week could have gone better.

As speculation swirls about Zacharia’s future, there are a couple of questions hanging overhead for the White House team she recently joined.

First, did anyone on the president’s team make any effort to vet her before she was hired? Or was this a situation in which Trump simply saw someone make comments he liked during some cable news interviews?

Second, who thought it would be a good idea for the president to choose a new press secretary, three weeks before nationwide elections, have her move across the country, and throw her into a difficult role without any meaningful preparation?

Clearly, Zacharia is failing as the new press secretary, but there’s a fair amount of blame to go around for this fiasco.

The post Katie Zacharia’s attempts at damage control aren’t going especially well appeared first on MS NOW.

White House officials instructed Pentagon leaders to limit Starshield, SpaceX’s military-grade satellite service used by Ukrainian forces, Reuters reported on 15 October, citing three officials. The report came a day after a senior US official told Axios the Trump administration had nothing to do with the alleged Starlink restrictions.

Ukrainian forces rely on US-controlled satellite technology for battlefield operations and for intercepting Russian drones aimed at Ukrainian cities, so the latest restrictions have raised questions about how reliably they can depend on it.

Senior US official denies president requested restrictions

Asked about the order, a senior US official replied, “No such request was ever made by the president.” The White House did not respond to questions about whether other administration officials might have made the request.

Ukrainian officials contacted the White House, State Department and Pentagon on 13 and 14 October and were told it was a White House decision

European allies question Starlink restrictions

European officials raised concerns about the restrictions. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul criticized the throttling and said Ukraine must continue to receive full support, Spiegel reported on 15 October. Wadephul said Germany had questions for the US, noting that Germany finances part of the Starlink technology used in Ukraine.

On 16 October, UK Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had assured him in a face-to-face meeting that Starlink was back up and running, the Guardian reported. However, a Ukrainian Defense Ministry source said that military-grade terminals were working in motion again, but only at speeds of up to 160 km/h.

New data-speed restrictions disrupted drone missions

The military Starshield package previously had no data-speed restrictions, Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Response Corps told Novynarnia. Ukrainian officials said that after the restrictions were imposed, terminals disconnected when drones exceeded 160 km/h and sometimes at 80 km/h.

The Corps also reported 10–20-second connection drops at 110–120 km/h on the Huliaipole front, which made drones harder to control. One unit had to cancel some missions.

The restrictions came as US President Donald Trump pressed Kyiv to stop striking Russian oil refineries, blaming them for soaring energy prices ahead of November’s midterm elections. Ukraine suspects SpaceX imposed the restrictions to pressure Kyiv over the refinery strikes, but that motive has not been confirmed.