Minnesota lawmaker’s attorneys asked for return of seized items and the preservation of any recordings of search
Ilhan Omar’s attorneys have asked the US Department of Justice to return property that federal agents removed days earlier from her home during a search.
The lawyers for the Minnesota Democrat contended that the seizure as “neither justified nor lawful”, according to a letter that the Associated Press reported on Friday.
Continue reading...
© Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
© Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
© Photograph: J Scott Applewhite/AP
US President Donald Trump has suspended the tariffs and sanctions on the biggest buyers of Russian oil set by the Lindsey Graham Act, the law he signed himself in September. He says the move serves US national interests, according to an executive order published on the White House site.
The act required the president, within 30 days, to impose 100% tariffs on all goods from the five biggest buyers of Russian oil, to sanction a range of Russian entities and to put 500% tariffs on all Russian energy imports to the US. The deadline for those measures fell on 18 October.
Trump has used the president’s power under Section 115 of the Graham Act, which allows him to waive sanctions, restrictions, and duties by certifying to Congress in writing that doing so serves US national interests and submitting a report explaining why. The act does not, however, allow him to cancel sanctions that have already been announced.
The two capitals read the same order in opposite ways. Kirill Dmitriev, an envoy for Russian leader Vladimir Putin, called it “an important and truly historic moment” on X, claiming the sanctions had mainly harmed the US economy and world markets.
“Economic cooperation between Russia and the US serves the interests of both nations, contributes to global economic stability and lays the foundation for building trust and achieving lasting peace,” Dmitriev writes.
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy answered from under fire. Russia struck Ukraine’s energy system on 17 October, and at that very moment Washington chose “to completely ignore the Lindsey Graham law, which was supposed to impose real, effective pressure on Russia to end this war,” he says.
The waiver lands amid a bipartisan revolt in Congress. Seven Republican and Democratic senators had already warned on 11 October that Trump’s move to allow Russian diesel imports had broken the law Congress passed after the full-scale invasion, urging the administration to reverse it so US money would not help finance Russia’s war.
Meanwhile, Zelenskyy argued the law can still work if Washington lets it.
“This law could, and still can, help a great deal. But the law has actually to work, and every vote for it matters,” he said, warning that the step only pushes Moscow to strike harder.
The world must not give up ground and must try to end the war, Zelenskyy added.
“To end it, and not give Putin every reason to continue it indefinitely,” he stressed, thanking everyone who “is truly fighting for peace and helping Ukraine," he stated.
The Ukrainian opposition also commented on Trump’s decision. Iryna Herashchenko, co-chair of the European Solidarity parliamentary faction, said that “the most cynical and stupid decisions are usually made by rulers on Saturday night,” when public attention is scattered, and people are preparing for the weekend.
“Rehabilitating Putin harms not only Ukraine but also the US itself, strengthens the axis of authoritarian regimes, and undermines international security,” she claimed.
President Donald Trump has suspended the implementation of sweeping American sanctions against Russia, using presidential waiver powers to prevent penalties approved by Congress from taking effect just weeks after he signed them into law.
The executive order issued by the White House on Friday, 16 October, suspends tariffs of up to 500 per cent on Russian imports, alongside penalties targeting major purchasers of Russian oil and gas. It also waives numerous financial and commercial restrictions intended to reduce Moscow’s ability to finance its war against Ukraine.
The decision comes two days before the 18 October deadline for implementing key provisions of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which Trump signed on 18 September. The legislation was named after the late Republican senator Lindsey Graham, who had championed tougher economic measures against Russia.
The presidential order formally establishes the tariff increases required by the legislation while simultaneously suspending their application.
Under the law, Russian imports into the United States would face additional duties of 500 per cent. A separate provision would impose 100 per cent tariffs on goods imported from the five largest purchasers of Russian crude oil and natural gas if those countries knowingly made new purchases from 18 October, subject to specified conditions and exemptions.
Another provision targets countries identified as leading facilitators of Russian oil sanctions evasion, potentially exposing their exports to similar American penalties.
Trump invoked Section 115 of the legislation, which permits the president to waive sanctions and tariffs after certifying to Congress that doing so serves the national interests of the United States.
The order confirms that the certification and an accompanying explanatory report have been submitted to Congress. However, the publicly released document provides no detailed justification for suspending the measures.
The waivers will remain in effect until the president or designated senior officials decide that further action is appropriate. Existing sanctions imposed under earlier executive orders are explicitly preserved, meaning the decision does not remove all American restrictions against Russia.
Nevertheless, the order prevents the new legislation’s principal economic penalties from operating at a time when Congress had sought to intensify pressure on Moscow.
The suspension follows Trump’s agreement with Putin to facilitate renewed Russian diesel exports, announced on 9 October as part of an effort to reduce international fuel prices.
As EU Today previously reported, the agreement envisages an immediate release of more than 300,000 tonnes of Russian diesel, followed by additional shipments in November and subsequent months. Washington also authorised certain transactions involving Russian diesel until April 2027.
The arrangement has raised questions about the relationship between the administration’s energy policy and sanctions intended to constrain Russia’s war economy.
Diesel prices have become an increasingly important domestic political issue ahead of the American congressional elections on 3 November. The war involving Iran and disruptions to international energy supplies have contributed to exceptionally high fuel costs, creating additional pressure on the administration.
The White House hopes additional Russian supplies will relieve pressure on international markets. However, energy analysts have questioned whether the quantities involved will materially affect American prices, particularly before the elections.
The latest waiver also removes the immediate threat of punitive tariffs against major Russian energy customers, including China and India, which had objected to the proposed measures.
The decision is likely to intensify opposition within Congress, where the sanctions legislation attracted substantial bipartisan support.
Earlier this week, 12 senators, including six Republicans, called on Trump to reverse his diesel agreement, arguing that allowing Russian fuel back onto international markets would provide Moscow with additional revenue for its military operations.
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, who helped develop the sanctions legislation, criticised the diesel arrangement as contrary to Congress’s intention to strengthen economic pressure on Russia.
The decision also exposes a widening divergence between Washington and Brussels.
At the European Council meeting on Friday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa reaffirmed that EU sanctions against Russia would remain in place until Moscow ended its war against Ukraine.
Costa declared that the present circumstances required increased pressure on Moscow rather than a relaxation of existing restrictions. The European Union is also preparing a 22nd sanctions package while considering additional financial support for Kyiv.
For Ukraine, the decision means that Russia will continue to benefit from energy exports and the international trade that helps finance its war. Instead of tightening restrictions on these revenues, Washington has suspended measures specifically intended to cut them.
The timing is particularly significant. While Trump is pressing Kyiv to halt attacks on Russian oil refineries and other energy facilities, Moscow continues its strikes against Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. Zelenskyy has argued that Ukraine cannot be expected to stop targeting Russia’s energy sector while Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure continue.
Although Trump can reinstate the sanctions, his decision removes the immediate threat of additional penalties against Russia and its principal energy customers. It also places Washington increasingly at odds with its European allies. Brussels remains committed to maintaining and expanding sanctions against Moscow, while the White House is now giving priority to reducing American fuel prices, even if that means easing economic pressure on Russia.
In a letter to Justice Department prosecutors Friday evening, lawyers for Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., demanded the immediate return of all property taken from her Washington home on Monday, when Homeland Security investigators executed a search warrant as part of an investigation into alleged immigration fraud and conspiracy.
That search deviated from the specific procedures mandated by the judge who approved the warrant, and may have violated Omar’s constitutional rights as a result, according to Omar’s lawyers Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz of Hecker Fink LLP.
Their seven-page letter also demands that the Department of Justice preserve and provide to Omar’s counsel within five days any video or audio recordings taken during the search, as well as any records reflecting Homeland Security Investigations’ reported review of Omar’s immigration status in 2019.
As a member of Congress, Omar is entitled to protections under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which provides immunity for her legislative conduct and protects certain congressional materials and communications from disclosure or use in legal proceedings.
The letter also challenges the perceived focus of the DOJ and Homeland Security’s investigation.
“There is no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status,” the lawyers write. “Still, recent experience teaches that the absence of a proper predicate has not stopped this Administration from pursuing politically motivated criminal investigations into President Trump’s opponents.”
The lawyers note that Omar, a frequent public critic of Trump, has been the target of criticism from Trump and members of his administration, with apparent efforts to harass and intimidate her. In particular, they cite several statements that Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made about Omar on social media over the past year. The lawyers allege those statements have contributed to serious threats of harm against Omar.
Omar’s lawyers also allege that the White House appears to be directly involved in the investigation, citing a Washington Post report that Anthony Salisbury, a White House official, is a member of the investigative team.
“This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers,” they write.
The lawyers also argue that the timing of the search at Omar’s home violates DOJ policy prohibiting prosecutors from taking or refraining from investigative or prosecutorial actions to influence an election.
Omar, who was first elected to Congress in 2018, is running for re-election to the House this year.
“Historically, the Department has refrained from this type of investigative activity so close to an election, so as to avoid even the appearance of politically motivated law enforcement actions. But the political motivations behind this pre-election investigation and search are clear as day. For the reasons given above, this search was neither justified nor lawful,” the letter states.
The letter was sent to two DOJ lawyers, Michael Wheat and Alessandra “Ali” Serano, both special assistant U.S. attorneys.
A veteran prosecutor from California, Serano was appointed in June by Attorney General Todd Blanche as the national coordinator for child exploitation and human trafficking. The DOJ announced that, as part of that role, Serano would “submit a report to the Deputy Attorney General updating the Department’s strategy for combatting child exploitation and human trafficking” within 120 days. That deadline is approaching within days.
Wheat, on the other hand, has recently been involved with a DOJ effort to obtain California voter registration records from county election officials, according to public reporting. The DOJ sued the state of California for access to those records earlier this week.
In addition to pushing back on the impetus for and timing of the search, the letter also details recent reporting from The Washington Post, which, citing multiple sources, revealed that the Trump administration investigated potential issues surrounding Omar’s naturalization during Trump’s first term and closed the investigation for lack of evidence of criminal conduct.
The letter also alleges that Monday’s search may not have comported with the specific instructions by the magistrate judge who approved the warrant. Among other alleged deficiencies, the lawyers say that although the judge ordered the HSI agents executing the warrant to notify both Omar and the Office of General Counsel for the House of Representatives, the General Counsel was not notified of the search until it was already a matter of public record. The lawyers argue that the delay deprived Omar of the opportunity to seek guidance about her rights as a member of Congress.
Additionally, the lawyers allege that Omar did not receive a copy of the warrant prior to the execution of the search and that she was prevented from contacting her counsel for more than an hour after the search began. They argue that those and other alleged failures prevented her from identifying and separating materials protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
People or entities from whom property is taken pursuant to a federal search warrant may seek the return of some or all of that property pursuant to rules governing federal criminal cases. Omar, her lawyers note, will file such a motion if the seized property — which, as MS NOW reported, includes her laptop, phone and passport — are not returned promptly.
The post Ilhan Omar demands DOJ immediately return property seized in search of her home appeared first on MS NOW.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates running for the House of Representatives and endorsed by NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani are all but guaranteed to win their general elections this November, but that does not mean the midterm drama is over in New York. In the state's 17th congressional district, which includes the lower Hudson Valley, Democratic challenger Cait Conley, a combat veteran who served on the Biden administration's National Security Council, could unseat incumbent Republican congressman Mike Lawler in one of the most consequential races of the midterms.
The highly contested purple district voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while reelecting Lawler for his second term. Now, Lawler is attempting to win a third term as support for President Donald Trump wanes ahead of the midterms. As of Friday, The Cook Political Report lists the race, which could determine control of the House, as a toss-up.
If elected, Conley would have far more in common with the "Badass Women" coalition of security state and military veterans than with DSA types (think more Sen. Elissa Slotkin from Michigan than Darializa Avila Chevalier). As Judge Street Journal's Timmy Facciola notes, "Conley's candidacy is testing the viability of a tactful centrism that rebukes left-wing positions like abolishing ICE or restricting weapon shipments to Israel." Lawler is also vying for moderates, pitching himself as "one of the most bipartisan members of Congress" and emphasizing his willingness to break with Trump occasionally while still welcoming Trump's support.
While Lawler and Conley certainly are not pure MAGA acolytes or DSA members, both have leaned into a tech-critical position, much like that of more radical populists like Lina Khan or Steve Bannon, revealing how pervasive anti-tech sentiment has become in mainstream politics.
This tech skepticism was on full display during an October 14 debate, when each candidate made the case for why they were the most equipped to regulate AI, insisting that the industry needs guardrails.
Conley said members of Congress do not want to regulate AI because "they want to look out for their billionaire and trillionaire backers like Elon Musk, who is pouring over $260 million into this midterm election." She then added that Musk backed Lawler in his 2024 race.
Lawler then accused Conley, who previously consulted for Primer AI, of being "the AI candidate for the AI industry."
While Lawler and Conley disagree on specific data center regulations (Conley supports Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul's data center moratorium while Lawler supports local zoning control over data centers), neither wants to pitch themselves as an explicitly pro-data center candidate. During the debate, Conley claimed that, "On Mike Lawler's watch there have been five data centers built in Rockland County." Lawler has said that he had no say in the decision to build the data centers, and during the debate, he pointed out that the facilities were built for financial services. Lawler also attempted to attack Conley over data centers, slamming her in an ad for saying "we need data centers." Regardless of the candidates' specific policies on data centers, their attacks on one another demonstrate that cheerleading hyperscale data center development is a political liability. In their district, data center has presumably become a dirty term.
The candidates' tech-skeptical rhetoric did not end with unchecked data center development. After the debate, Reason asked both candidates about their positions on age-verification laws for social media and AI, since such regulations raise significant privacy and censorship concerns by age-gating the internet. Unsurprisingly, both Lawler, who voted for the controversial KIDS Act, and Conley, who has proposed stricter age verification for AI tools, parroted platitudes about why such online safety regulations are necessary to protect children.
"We have watched how social media is literally hurting the mental health of children," Conley told Reason. "And when you talk about the power of AI and what that power could do, we have to regulate this."
Lawler gave a similar response, telling Reason that he respects free speech but that protecting children "is paramount."
This bipartisan consensus over social media regulation has long been brewing in Congress. The mainstream political conversations about AI and data centers, however, are relatively new this midterm election cycle. And it appears both Lawler and Conley have figured out which way Americans' sentiment toward AI is leaning, and they have waged their campaigns accordingly.
The post Nobody Wants To Be the Pro-Tech Candidate in This New York Race That Could Flip the House appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Just as Vladimir and Estragon waited for Godot in Beckett’s famous play, the world may now be waiting for Xi Jinping in the present political drama. America is stuck in two wars. In Ukraine, it would like to reach a compromise with Russia. In the Middle East, it is trying to bring down Tehran’s regime, […]
The post Wars and the oil blockades may be waiting for Xi’s party congress appeared first on Asia Times.
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.
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.
YIKES#mesen #mepolitics
— danny (@dabbs346.bsky.social) 2026-10-15T23:18:56.838Z
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.
A bipartisan group of 22 House lawmakers is urging President Donald Trump to fully implement the new Russia sanctions law and revoke a license allowing certain Russian diesel transactions. In a letter sent on 15 October, they copied Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and requested details on planned sanctions, tariffs and waivers.
Their request comes as the law’s first requirements fall due on 18 October, while lawmakers from both parties challengethe administration’s decision to allow certain Russian diesel transactions. Some restrictions take effect automatically, while others require presidential action. The law does not specify a penalty for the president missing the deadline.
Congress passed the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 by votes of 86–11 in the Senate and 262–159 in the House. Trump signed it on 18 September. Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, died in July.
Restrictions taking effect automatically on 18 October include a ban on US banks and broker-dealers processing transfers to or from the Russian government, a ban on new US investment in Russia, a ban on new US investment in Russia’s energy sector, and a ban on US energy exports to Russia.
Other measures require presidential action by the same date. The law directs Trump to review and sanction Russian officials, oligarchs and shadow-fleet vessels, sanction the Bank of Russia, specified Russian banks and state-owned companies, and impose tariffs of up to 500% on Russian goods. Tariffs of up to 100% can apply to goods from countries among the five largest importers of Russian oil or gas, or among the top five countries facilitating Russian oil sanctions evasion.
Trump may waive sanctions, restrictions and tariffs under the law if he first certifies in writing to Congress that a waiver is in the US national interest and submits a report explaining its basis.
House members also urged Trump to revoke General License 135, which the Treasury Department issued on 9 October and that is valid until 7 April 2027. It permits certain transactions involving Russian-origin diesel, including imports into the United States. Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to US and global markets and predicted prices would fall sharply, according to a 9 October Truth Social post.
On 13 October, a bipartisan group of 12 senators also urged Trump to rescind the deal and revoke the license. Seven senators said the deal conflicted with a 2022 law banning Russian energy imports.
The Graham Act says nothing in its provisions affects the Treasury secretary’s existing authority to issue general licenses. That provision does not resolve whether the diesel license complies with the separate 2022 law.
A White House official told Newsweek the administration would comply with the Graham Act. Bessent said the administration would use “all the legal authorities we have” and called the deal “good for the American people,” Fox News reported on 11 October.
Separately, the law sets a process for terminating sanctions, restrictions or duties against Russia. Trump must report to Congress that Russia has signed a peace agreement accepted by Ukraine’s government and ceased military hostilities against Ukraine, as well as activities to overthrow, dismantle or subvert its government. Congress has 30 days to block termination through a joint resolution of disapproval, or 60 days for reports submitted between 10 July and 7 September.
With Social Security barreling toward insolvency, the government is increasing benefits in January.
On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that retirees will receive a 3.6 percent increase in Social Security benefits next year. The raise, which was unveiled shortly after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported consumer prices rose 3.7 percent year over year in September, will amount to an increase of $75 per month for the average beneficiary. It also represents a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that will be 0.8 percentage points higher than last year's, which was 2.8 percent, and 0.9 percentage points higher than what was projected by the Social Security Trustees, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"Social Security will implement this cost-of-living adjustment for 76 million Americans, giving them greater financial stability," said SSA Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano in a press release. "Under President Donald J. Trump, Social Security is delivering better, faster, higher-quality service for the American people."
But the announcement comes as Social Security faces a looming funding cliff.
The program has been spending considerably more than it receives for years, thanks in large part to the U.S. demographic problem: Birth rates have collapsed, life expectancy has risen, and there are fewer working-age people paying taxes to fund retirees. In 2025, the program collected $1.45 trillion in revenue and spent $1.61 trillion, leaving a $160 billion shortfall. Trust fund reserves covered the gap, but they are rapidly dwindling. In June, Social Security's Trustees projected that, without legislative changes, incoming revenue would cover only 78 percent of scheduled retirement and survivor benefits by late 2032—a 22 percent shortfall. Combined retirement and disability funds are expected to run out by 2034. There are a handful of fixes, including raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, raising the cap on earnings, means-testing the program, privatizing it, or getting rid of it altogether.
While many lawmakers have acknowledged reality, Congress remains divided on how to address the issue. In August, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) blocked a proposal from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) to establish a congressional process to consider reforms, arguing that it would slash retiree benefits and help billionaires "avoid paying their fair share."
"People are objecting to doing their job," Cassidy complained in September. "Congress needs to fix Social Security this year."
What makes Wednesday's increase even more unjustified is the fact that older Americans are already among the wealthiest age groups in the country. According to the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances released last week, households headed by someone aged 75 or older had a median net worth of $504,900 in 2025, compared with just $33,000 for households headed by someone under 35. Despite their relative wealth compared to working-age people, retirees are getting a COLA increase that is greater than the average worker, whose wages have risen by 3 percent in the last year.
For the very wealthiest beneficiaries, the 2027 COLA will constitute an enormous increase. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the highest-earning couples who retired this year will receive a combined increase of $3,600, meaning that their combined benefits would exceed $100,000 next year. However, without congressional action, Social Security recipients could expect a 22 percent cut that, in 2032, would wipe out the previous nine years' COLAs all at once.
Despite years of warnings about Social Security's deteriorating finances, Congress has yet to enact reforms to avert the looming shortfall. For now, beneficiaries can look forward to larger checks in January, even as the program moves closer to the day when it can no longer pay the benefits it has promised.
The post Social Security Is Running Out of Money. Benefits Are Rising 3.6% Next Year Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.
The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.
Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.
Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.
If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.
The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.
A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.
When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.
Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.
Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.
Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.
As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.
The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.
None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
The post The Federal Government Collected $5.4 Trillion. It Still Can't Pay Its Bills. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
John Eastman has amassed a small army of support from conservative legal voices backing his bid for the Supreme Court to help him keep his law license.
Among the many amicus briefs urging the justices to grant review of Eastman’s petition are Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah. Sounding a similar note to briefs from other supporters, they told the justices that “[p]olitical activists have turned the bar disciplinary process into a weapon against lawyers on the disfavored side of public controversies.”
Whether that support from Cruz, Lee and others will help convince the justices to consider Eastman’s appeal remains to be seen. It takes four justices to grant review.
If the court grants review — we won’t find out for at least a few weeks — that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it will side with Eastman in the end. It would mean that the justices will consider doing so and will issue a ruling one way or the other after holding a hearing. The court denies most petitions.
The California authorities found that Eastman’s disbarment is needed “to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession” following his misconduct in representing President Donald Trump and his 2020 campaign. The state bar waived its right to respond to Eastman’s petition, which could signal to the justices that the matter is not worth their time, a sign that the amicus briefs urging review are attempting to counteract.
This litigation is developing as an unrelated bar complaint was filed in California against Trump’s new White House press secretary, Katie Zacharia, asking the state to investigate whether she violated California law by holding herself out as a lawyer despite apparently not being admitted to practice law.
Among Eastman’s backers are a pack of 17 current and former Trump lawyers and a coalition that includes a group called the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Not all the amicus briefs are as partisan-aligned. A filing from law professors warned that disbarments based on political advocacy “are likely to arise again, both from the left and from the right.” The professors noted that Eastman’s case “also involves other allegations of impropriety, such as alleged false statements to courts,” which the academics said they weren’t weighing in on.
Eastman’s petition is currently set to be considered at one of the justices’ upcoming private conferences on Nov. 6. If the court doesn’t call for the state to respond to the petition, then that would all but guarantee that it will deny it.
If the court requests a response, that wouldn’t mean that it will grant Eastman’s petition, but that could prolong the review process. It only takes one interested justice to get the court to request a response. Like the secret vote tallies when the court grants review of petitions, the court does not publicize which justice or justices request responses; the public dockets reflect the actions as taken on behalf of the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Eastman clerked, previously recused himself from an Eastman-related case. But the justice did not explain why, so it is unclear whether he will weigh in on this petition. If Thomas recuses himself from this one, too, then that could make it more difficult for his former clerk to attract enough votes for review.
The California bar court rejected Eastman against the backdrop of what the court called his “attempts to actively undermine the results of an election to the most powerful office in the United States with the goal of delaying or invalidating the lawful installation of his client’s electoral opponent and thereby keep his client in office.”
The bar court agreed that Eastman committed several instances of professional misconduct, including trying to mislead the courts, the public and Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence, whom Trump tried to pressure to overturn his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden through the vice president’s ceremonial role in presiding over the Senate’s certification of the election results.
“Eastman made numerous false claims to help accomplish the conspiracy’s shared objective: to have former Vice-President Pence run interference on the electoral vote count with the goal to have him reject or delay the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021,” the court said.
In an opinion affirming a hearing judge’s culpability findings, the court also agreed with the judge that Eastman was not culpable for one of the counts alleged by bar authorities due to a lack of evidence that his statements contributed to the assault and breach of the U.S. Capitol.
Eastman turned to the justices in Washington after the California Supreme Court made his disbarment official earlier this year. Announcing the filing of his high court petition, his lawyers said the case isn’t about relitigating the 2020 election but rather “whether a state can strip a lawyer of his license — and his livelihood — because government officials disagreed with the legal arguments he made on behalf of his client.”
They said that if it can happen to Eastman, then it can happen to any lawyer who takes on unpopular causes. They said Supreme Court review is needed “to remove the threat the decision below poses not just to the First Amendment but to the ability of attorneys fiercely to advocate for their clients without fear of politicized disbarment.”
Meanwhile, Eastman is continuing to work as a lawyer. He has filed briefs in several high-profile Supreme Court cases over the years, including in support of the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, which a divided court rejected in June.
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 Ted Cruz and Mike Lee want the Supreme Court to hear John Eastman’s appeal appeared first on MS NOW.
Login