The idea behind a federal anti-fraud task force is not inherently absurd. Independent estimates show billions of dollars are lost every year to fraud and abuse, and if officials have a credible idea about how to combat the problem, more power to them.

Seven months after the launch of the White House’s anti-fraud task force, however, the list of problems is not short.

From the outset, there was ample reason for skepticism. The effort, Donald Trump said, would be led by JD Vance, who was an unfortunate choice. Not only was the vice president unqualified for such a task, but the administration also made little effort to hide its partisan political motivations, which meant it was eager to target blue states.

What’s more, this is a delicate issue for the president, given his unfortunate record on committing fraud, benefiting from fraud and issuing pardons to those who have been convicted of fraud.

Making matters worse is the task force’s actual performance. Vance insists he and his team have uncovered more than $260 billion in fraud, but those claims have largely unraveled under scrutiny.

With this in mind, the White House is apparently trying a new tack: crowdsourcing.

Trump announces "fraud whistleblower incentive program" — "Americans will now be able to go to fraud dot gov and report cases of corruption and theft of taxpayer dollars in their communities … if you turn somebody in and you find $1 billion, we're giving a commission of 1%. That's a lot of money"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:18:02.278Z

On Tuesday afternoon, Trump and Vance announced a $25 million whistleblower program, to be administered by the Department of Justice, which is designed to offer cash rewards to those who uncover and report cases of fraud.

I suppose it’s possible that this will be an amazing success, and Americans will succeed in identifying the kind of systemic problems that the Republican administration has struggled to identify. (Trump specifically said at the Oval Office announcement, “People will make millions of dollars by turning others in.”)

But it’s probably best to keep expectations low.

First, the mechanism is a mess. People are supposed to submit tips to fraud.gov, with the promise of up to $30,000 to those who uncover cases that lead to criminal convictions or “significant federal enforcement” actions. What’s to stop scores of people from submitting baseless allegations, each of which investigators would be expected to review? Nothing. (I’ll be especially interested in seeing how many Americans report instances of alleged fraud involving Trump and his team.)

Second, the first recipient of a taxpayer-funded check is Nick Shirley, a right-wing YouTube influencer, who’s undeserving of such a reward, and whose payout reinforces concerns that this endeavor is little more than a political gambit.

Third, the White House staff doesn’t appear to have done its homework. The president said, under his plan, tipsters will be eligible for 1% of the cost of the disclosed fraud, prompting a reporter to remind him that under the False Claims Act, which has been on the books for more than 150 years, Americans are eligible to collect between 10% and 25%.

Fourth, given the way this administration has mistreated whistleblowers, it’s rather ironic to see the White House launch a whistleblower program like this one.

Finally, there’s Trump’s vision of his hands-on role in the program.

Trump lies his ass off about the economy: "We have more growth than this country has ever had. And we have more growth than any country in the world is having right now."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:40:15.035Z

“When you do these things, sometimes there’s a dispute about who turned them in, who didn’t turn them in and who is supposed to get what and when,” the president said. “So I am going to do something which I think people will like: I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions. In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving.”

In other words, the Justice Department is administering the program, but Trump expects to personally intervene, taking time from the day job he’s supposed to be doing, to adjudicate certain cases and approve payouts.

What could possibly go wrong?

The post White House’s new fraud whistleblower program suffers from some glaring flaws appeared first on MS NOW.

Sen. Roger Marshall’s re-election campaign is struggling for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest problems for the Kansas Republican is the recent reporting on how he treated patients who couldn’t afford their bills during his time in private practice.

That Donald Trump is trying to defend his loyal congressional ally is not surprising. What’s notable, however, is how the president is rallying to the senator’s defense.

At a campaign rally in Kansas, Trump acknowledged the controversy but said news organizations had been unfair to the senator, since Marshall was “mandated by law” to “go after those people.” That wasn’t even close to being true — there was no legal requirement for Marshall to garnish paychecks, seek arrest warrants or charge punitive interest rates — although the president didn’t stop there.

Trump says the press smeared Roger Marshall as "a shylock type guy"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T00:36:34.374Z

“They made it like, oh, he was some kind of a Shylock-type guy,” the president said.

As NBC News reported, the word is widely recognized as “an antisemitic slur.”

In fairness, one might note that, in 2014, then-Vice Presiden Joe Biden used the same word, though the Delaware Democrat apologized shortly after.

Trump, in contrast, has publicly used the word more than once, and he has never apologized.

Making matters worse is the broader pattern, which makes it impossible to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Last year, for example, the Republican president declared that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish lawmaker in the history of the U.S. Congress, is “not Jewish anymore” because the New York Democrat opposed the White House’s foreign policy agenda.

The inherent antisemitism was unavoidable. It’s not up to Trump to declare himself the arbiter of who the “real” Jews are based on his personal whims or any officials’ willingness to go along with his policies.

A year earlier, as the 2024 race neared its end, Trump publicly suggested that he intended to blame Jews, at least in part, if he lost. A month earlier, after seeing Gov. Josh Shapiro’s remarks at the Democratic National Convention, the former president decided to take a rhetorical shot at his critic. The Pennsylvania Democrat, Trump wrote online, is a “highly overrated Jewish Governor.” In context, there was no reason for the Republican to reference Shapiro’s faith. Trump did it anyway.

Months earlier, he similarly invoked the familiar “dual loyalty” trope by claiming that Jewish voters who support Democrats hate Israel.

All of this was offensive but familiar. During his 2016 campaign, the future president spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition and said, “You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money. You want to control your politicians.” He added, “I’m a negotiator — like you folks.”

Several months later, in the run-up to Election Day 2016, the Republican promoted antisemitic imagery on social media. In the closing days of the campaign, Trump again faced accusations of antisemitism, claiming Hillary Clinton met “in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers.”

During his first term, Trump continued to use highly provocative rhetoric about Jews and what he expected of their “loyalties.” In 2019, he spoke at the Israeli American Council’s national summit, where he suggested Jewish people are primarily focused on wealth, which is why he expected them to support his re-election campaign.

After his 2020 defeat, Trump kept this going, whining that Jewish voters “don’t love Israel enough,” dining with prominent antisemites at Mar-a-Lago, and arguing that Jews need to “get their act together” and “appreciate” Israel “before it is too late.”

In late 2022, he went so far as to declare that Jewish leaders “should be ashamed of themselves” over their “lack of loyalty.”

Trump occasionally expresses bewilderment over his lack of support among Jewish voters. Why he finds this confusing is a mystery.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest example of antisemitic rhetoric was hardly his first appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump’s first bailout for farmers came in 2018, at which point the president approved payments totaling $12 billion. A year later, the Republican administration kept going, announcing a bailout for farmers worth $16 billion.

Late last year, the president launched another $12 billion bailout for farmers, many of whom were harmed by the White House’s misguided and ill-fated trade tariffs policy, though the money proved insufficient. As my MS NOW colleague Hayes Brown summarized, the policy was little more than “duct tape on a broken pipe,” which did “little to fix the underlying problem.”

In June, Trump made it clear that he was eyeing a possible fourth bailout for the industry. And this week he followed through, announcing an $8 billion bailout during a campaign rally in Kansas, specifically aimed at helping farmers address higher diesel costs. The New York Times reported:

Under the plan, known as the Harvest Fuel Relief Program, the Agriculture Department will use a formula based on how many acres and which crops farmers planted to reimburse them for a “portion” of their losses. The money will come from the Commodity Credit Corporation, a financing institution that the Agriculture Department uses to fund crop insurance and natural disaster payment programs.

Payment rates will be announced next month, and farmers will receive money at a later date.

There’s ample reason to believe the $8 billion will be insufficient. But just as notably, at no point during Trump’s event did he mention that farmers were struggling with higher diesel costs because of the war with Iran that the president launched eight months ago.

Indeed, the one thing that all four of the bailouts have in common is that they’re effectively admissions of guilt: Trump’s agenda continues to hurt his own country’s agriculture industry, which in turn has necessitated a series of payouts.

As for the timing of the president’s latest announcement, it comes just two weeks before Election Day, with early voting underway in many states. It’s a safe bet that the bailout was intended to address intensifying discontent among voters in farming communities, who have long backed Republicans but don’t appear to have much to show for it. As MS NOW reported this week:

After two decades of defeats in rural America, Democrats are suddenly putting up a fight in farm country. The party is running competitive Senate races in Iowa, Kansas and other farm states, as well as House races in heavily rural districts that could help it regain control of Congress in January.

Credit (or blame, depending on your party) for this reversal of fortune lies with President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his war with Iran, which have battered farmers and pushed the rural economy into crisis. The Department of Agriculture’s analysts expect farmers’ net incomes to decline by 5.5% this year, as costs rise and receipts fall. The National Agricultural Law Center’s tally of farm bankruptcies jumped 45% last year, and is on pace to rise another 11% in 2026.

Will Trump’s latest bailout affect voters’ attitudes, enough to stem the tide? We’ll find out in two weeks.

The post White House approves yet another bailout for farmers hurt by Trump’s agenda appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In Ohio’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist Poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted, 48% to 44%, which is roughly in line with most of other recent surveys in the state.

That said, there is a socialist candidate in the race named Greg Levy, who doesn’t have a realistic chance of success but who’s suddenly picking up Republican support as part of an apparent effort to divide the left and undermine support for Brown’s candidacy.

For example, a super PAC tied to a Republican firm recently started sending out mailers on behalf of the socialist candidate; and this week, Politico reported that the same GOP-aligned super PAC, called Enough Promises Ohio, has “more than tripled its investment” in support of Levy’s candidacy.

The Politico report added, “Levy himself has distanced himself from the PAC, calling its boosting of him an ‘attempted deception of voters’ that’s ‘a form of digital blackface.’ Levy is Black. His spokesperson, Charlie Koenigsmark, also told Politico that he and the campaign ‘completely condemn this attempt to manipulate voters.’”

* While Georgia’s U.S. Senate race has received a lot of attention (for good reason), the state’s gubernatorial race is proving to be an even more competitive contest: The latest Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll found Republican Rick Jackson leading Keisha Lance Bottoms, Atlanta’s former Democratic mayor, by the narrowest of margins, 46% to 45%.

* Speaking of interesting gubernatorial races, the latest Alaska Survey Research poll found Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins ahead of Republican Bernadette Wilson, 54% to 46%. Alaska’s incumbent governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy, is term-limited and cannot seek a third term.

* In Oklahoma’s gubernatorial race, which is also proving to be unexpectedly competitive, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new investment in support of state Rep. Cyndi Munson’s candidacy, who’s running against former Republican state Sen. Mike Mazzei in this open-seat contest.

* In Texas’ closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest University of Houston poll showed Democratic state Rep. James Talarico narrowly leading Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 48% to 46%, which is roughly in line with other recent statewide surveys.

* And in Massachusetts’ gubernatorial race, the latest WCVB/University of Massachusetts Amherst poll found incumbent Democratic Gov. Maura Healey with a massive advantage over Republican Mike Minogue, 57% to 32%.

The post Tuesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.20.26: Socialist candidate in Ohio receives GOP support appeared first on MS NOW.

In hindsight, it seems like Donald Trump might not have fully thought through the consequences of his bizarre $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC, which continues to move forward in ways the presidential plaintiff doesn’t seem to like.

Attorneys for the British broadcaster, for example, recently subpoenaed former special counsel Jack Smith to testify.

“It is difficult to imagine a more authoritative source on these issues than Mr. Smith, who spent years gathering evidence on those topics with the force of the Justice Department and the power of the grand jury behind him,” the BBC said in a court filing.

The president and his lawyers apparently don’t see it that way. The New Republic reported:

President Trump doesn’t want former special counsel Jack Smith to testify in a deposition as part of Trump’s $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the British Broadcasting Company.

The BBC has subpoenaed Smith to defend itself from Trump’s accusations that the network defamed him with deceptive editing in a 2024 documentary about the January 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. In a court filing Friday, Trump’s lawyers tried to fight the subpoena by claiming that “Smith lacks any personal knowledge regarding the issues in this matter.”

In response, the BBC’s attorneys wrote, “No one forced Plaintiff to file this lawsuit and to dispute that his speech on January 6 incited the violence that followed at the Capitol. But as long as he chooses to maintain the case, he cannot commit the fundamental injustice of preventing the BBC from obtaining the evidence it needs to robustly defend itself on every element of his claim, including Plaintiff’s burden to prove falsity.”

To recap briefly, Trump sued the British broadcaster for $10 billion late last year over a news program that focused on the Jan. 6 attack. Defending the litigation, Trump told reporters that the network “literally put words in my mouth,” adding, “I guess they used AI. … They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say.”

That wasn’t quite right. For one thing, the BBC didn’t use artificial intelligence. For another, the network did air a program that edited Trump’s Jan. 6 speech, connecting two clips delivered roughly 50 minutes apart; but the news outlet didn’t manufacture words or phrases out of whole cloth.

The editing nevertheless sparked a controversy that led to an internal investigation, and the BBC ultimately fired some senior officials and issued a written apology.

Trump, however, apparently didn’t want to settle for an apology. He wants $10 billion.

The case, however, has proven rather inconvenient for the Republican who filed it. BBC lawyers want to depose the president as part of the proceedings, but Trump has already backed out of a scheduled deposition and appears reluctant to answer questions about his own case.

As The New Republic report added, “His attorneys are also fighting attempts to … subpoena his children to testify and to dive into his finances.”

Now those same lawyers want to prevent the former special counsel, who has plenty to say about Trump’s Jan. 6 efforts, from answering related questions, further delaying the case that the president ostensibly wants to proceed.

The judge has scheduled a hearing for later this week to consider questions about the Smith deposition and discovery related to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago revenue, which would help shed light on whether the president has suffered damages as the result of the alleged defamation. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Why the BBC wants to talk to Jack Smith, and why Team Trump wants to block his testimony appeared first on MS NOW.

The E15 policy is probably unfamiliar to many Americans, but in parts of the Midwest, especially Kansas, it’s a very big deal. Its importance is what made Donald Trump’s latest rhetoric so extraordinary.

To oversimplify matters a bit, the E15 policy refers to a biofuel blend made with 15% ethanol, which is sold to consumers as part of an effort to reduce prices at the pump. Under existing federal laws, E15 sales are limited to the summer driving season, though Kansans, especially in rural areas, would much prefer year-round E15 sales.

With this in mind, ahead of the president’s campaign rally in Kansas on Monday night, the White House boasted in a press statement, “President Trump approved year-round E15 sales, expanding markets for Kansas corn growers and giving drivers more affordable options at the pump.”

Hours later, Trump delivered remarks at his campaign event, which touched on the E15 policy — in an unexpected way.

Trump: "With Roger Marshall in the Senate, we will make year-round E15 permanent. But if Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not going it. That's it. I'm only doing it for him. That's a big deal for Kansas."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T01:17:16.134Z

“I also gave Kansas a waiver to sell E15 all year round, and with [incumbent Republican Sen.] Roger Marshall in the Senate, we will make year-round E15 permanent,” the president said. “But if [the Rep. Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee] is in, I’m not doing it. That’s it. I’m only doing it for him. That’s a big deal for Kansas, actually.”

I’m mindful that Trump’s transactional approach to campaign politics has become quite brazen of late. Over the weekend, for example, the president told a Kentucky audience that the administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred Senate candidate won.

Earlier this month, Trump similarly told an Ohio audience that he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they don’t elect a Republican governor.

At practically every rally, Trump similarly vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — at a cost of roughly $1.3 trillion — but only if the election results make him happy.

But his E15 comments in Kansas are arguably the most outrageous to date. There’s nothing about a Democratic-led Congress that would prevent Trump from extending his earlier waiver, but the president made the policy commitment conditional anyway, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

Trump effectively told Kansans he’s prepared to hurt their state on purpose if they vote in a way that displeases him. If there’s a defense or a precedent for such a presidential message, I can’t think of it.

The post Trump takes transactional politics to a new level at latest campaign rally appeared first on MS NOW.

The good news for Donald Trump is that he’s profiting to a breathtaking degree from the presidency. The bad news for the Republican is that Americans have noticed.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, for example, found that 66% of the public believes the president is using his office to enrich himself, up from 56% a year ago. A week earlier, The Associated Press released the results of its latest national poll, which similarly found that most Americans believe that Trump “is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than helping people like them.”

Somehow, JD Vance has failed to notice what the American mainstream already understands.

On Saturday, CBS News aired a town hall event in Michigan where the vice president told host Tony Dokoupil, “I’ve not once seen evidence that Donald Trump has enriched himself.”

JD Vance: "I've not seen a single shred of evidence that Donald Trump participates or sanctions in that corruption … I've not once seen evidence that Donald Trump has enriched himself"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-18T00:43:28.833Z

Two days later, the Ohio Republican sat down with Mark Halperin, who interviewed the vice president for a media outlet called 2WAY, and Vance continued to toe the line.

“I think the president’s allowed to earn a living and allowed to live his life, and I don’t see, again, the question is, is he profiting off of his office,” Vance said. “I just don’t see any evidence that’s true.”

This suggests that the vice president is either remarkably unobservant or deliberately unobservant.

This doesn’t have to be complicated. In the first year of Trump’s second term, the president pulled in at least $2.2 billion, including more than $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency-related income, according to his latest annual financial disclosure.

No other president in American history has ever seen such financial gains while in office, and as a recent analysis from The New York Times explained, “Mr. Trump’s profits are a haul once unimaginable for any leader of a liberal democracy, particularly a sitting American president. No modern Western leader has ever publicly disclosed such big windfalls while in office. The Trump family’s earnings, experts said, have moved him into an echelon of enrichment more associated with strongmen in Russia and Turkey.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut posted a related, seven-part response to Vance via Bluesky, highlighting a variety of other ways Trump has profited off his office, including lucrative stock trades.

“Listen man, we get it,” the senator concluded in a message directed at the vice president. “If you work for Trump, you agree to lie and let your boss steal from taxpayers. But NO ONE believes you.”

The post As Trump profits off the presidency, JD Vance is surprisingly unobservant appeared first on MS NOW.

Donald Trump has probably been briefed by his political team on the ongoing gender gap in American politics. In the latest Pew Research Center poll, for example, the president’s approval rating among men was 33%, but among women it was down to 26%. The same survey found that in the midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans were tied among men, but women plan to vote Democratic — by a 14-point margin.

With just two weeks remaining in the midterm election cycle, the White House took a modest step toward addressing this problem, though the move was not without flaw.

On Monday morning, the president signed an executive order creating a Women’s Health Division at the National Institutes of Health, which will apparently work alongside a new White House Women’s Health Task Force. According to Trump, the idea was pushed by his wife, first lady Melania Trump, who delivered rare public remarks to the kickoff event.

“Beginning today, we will change the reality of women’s health,” she said. “Previous generations fought for women’s rights. Our generation will fight to discover the cures that will ensure a woman can live her life in health and to the fullest.”

On the surface, the initiative seems entirely worthwhile, but a closer look reveals some notable points of concern.

The leadership: The White House’s task force will be co-chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is wildly unqualified for such a role, and whose disengagement from governing reinforces impressions that this initiative is largely for show.

The resources: While the objective behind the initiative has merit, what’s needed are real investments in scientific research, and Trump’s executive order neither allocated any funds nor included any funding goals.

The redundancy: The idea of creating an office at the NIH specifically focused on women’s health sounds great, but Team Trump didn’t come up with the idea: The NIH has had an Office of Research on Women’s Health for 36 years.

A Washington Post report added, “Trump’s initiative resembles past administrations’ activities. Then-first lady Jill Biden pursued similar efforts to jump-start women’s health research, and Biden officials in November 2023 launched their own White House effort intended to coordinate a cross-government response to boost women’s health.”

The record: It’s good to see the Republican administration take women’s health research seriously, but this appears to be a relatively new priority. As The New York Times reported, it was just last year when Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services, under Kennedy’s leadership, tried to “slash funding for the Women’s Health Initiative, a long-running, taxpayer-funded study of a broad range of women’s health issues that began in the 1990s.”

The rollout: While the president had a seemingly straightforward objective when announcing the initiative, he predictably strayed from his prepared text and started talking about, among other things, how impressed he was with his renovation decisions, the replacement of the White House Rose Garden, the cushions he had “specially made” for White House patio seats and his concerns related to damage to women’s shoes.

Under the circumstances, it’s probably best to keep expectations low as the White House’s efforts on this issue get underway.

The post The problem(s) with the White House’s new women’s health initiative appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* In France: “French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday voiced the public’s ‘anger’ and ‘shame’ over rioting and looting during nationwide protests against rising living costs and poor conditions in schools. At least 1,800 people have been arrested.”

* On a related note: “French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu says he has instructed prefects to impose ‘very limited’ and ‘localized’ curfews in cities to prevent more rioting and looting, after this weekend’s violence targeted city halls, other public buildings and hundreds of businesses across the country.”

* In Ukraine: “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged supporters Saturday to speak out in defense of new U.S. sanctions against Russia, hours after President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing a sweeping package of restrictions targeting the Russian economy.”

* On a related note: “Zelenskyy also said Saturday that Moscow had carried out a massive strike on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, targeting more than 15 sites across the country. ‘The sheer scale and unrelenting pace of Russia’s strikes, specifically against our energy sector, are unfortunately having severe consequences,’ he said.”

* The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo “has reached an eighth province in the country’s north, authorities said on Sunday as the spread of the world’s fastest-growing outbreak of the disease on record continues to outpace response efforts.”

* Weather forecasting matters: “The Trump administration’s cuts to weather satellites will set the country back nearly a decade, experts say. The loss of data used to observe, forecast and research extreme weather could prevent the country from making major advances in weather prediction in the coming years. This finding comes from a new report released Friday from the Government Accountability Office, and a letter sent to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Monday from Democratic lawmakers.”

* A committee of judicial investigators found there’s a “reasonable basis” to believe U.S. District Judge Ada Brown suffers from a mental condition: “A committee of judicial investigators said that a federal judge in Dallas abandoned her role and recommended she be temporarily stripped of her docket, according to internal court documents shared with Bloomberg Law. US District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas is facing a judicial misconduct proceeding over several allegations, including the mishandling of her docket and treating other judges and court staff ‘in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner,’ those documents state.”

* Dan Scavino discloses a windfall: “President Donald Trump’s longtime White House social media guru scored a seven-figure payday last year from the president’s social media company, according to a new federal financial disclosure.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Monday’s Mini-Report, 10.19.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

In a planning document released last month, the National Park Service conceded that the “triumphal arch” that President Donald Trump is desperate to build would cause “adverse effects” to nearby historic properties and monuments if construction advances as planned.

But, the administration added, the wildly unnecessary and legally dubious project is moving forward anyway.

A week later, the campaign to build one of the president’s many vanity projects took a rather farcical turn when Trump said, in apparent seriousness, that he planned to convert the 250-foot project into a “top grade military complex” to house drones. In case that wasn’t quite laughable enough, the Republican — who claimed to be acting in response to a “strong request” from unnamed Armed Forces personnel — added that the arch would also feature snipers on the roof, along with “large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, whose congressional district includes the area in question, called the president’s latest argument “stupid” and “idiotic,” adding, “Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security.”

And therein lay the point. When Trump was worried about the litigation surrounding the White House ballroom vanity project, he shifted his rhetorical focus to pretend the project had a national security component. It wasn’t the case, but someone apparently explained to him that federal courts have traditionally given presidents wide latitude to pursue national security priorities, giving him the apparent idea of trying to pull the same trick twice.

At least, that was the plan. The Washington Post reported:

The Trump administration on Friday released final plans for President Donald Trump’s 250-foot-tall triumphal arch that do not include drones, snipers or other features of the “military complex” that Trump said he would add to the project.

The National Capital Planning Commission, a federal panel that reviews major construction projects, posted new renderings and accompanying documents provided by the Interior Department, which is overseeing the controversial project. None of the new documents mentions a military purpose for the arch, with officials instead offering information on planned tourist visits and other ceremonial functions.

So, is that it? If the final plan excludes the absurd “military complex” elements, is it safe to say that even the Trump administration has moved on from this nonsense?

Alas, no. The White House told the Post that Trump’s plans hadn’t changed, and information related to a national security component for the arch may yet be released at a later date.

Whether that’s true is unclear, although in the meantime, a group of U.S. military veterans is moving forward with legal efforts to prevent work on the project from getting started in earnest. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s own team hedges on ‘military complex’ component of ‘triumphal arch’ appeared first on MS NOW.

In January 2017, with only a couple of days remaining in Barack Obama’s presidency, the Democrat held a White House press conference in which he explained his vision of occasional political intervention.

“There’s a difference,” the outgoing president explained, “between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake.”

In other words, Obama was sending a signal to the public: If people were looking to him to condemn everything Donald Trump did on a near-daily basis, they were likely to be disappointed. Once in a great while, however, the former president might feel the need to step up and defend fundamental American principles.

Obama has largely kept that pledge, steering clear of the day-to-day political arena, but over the weekend, he made the latest in a series of exceptions. MS NOW reported:

Former President Barack Obama issued a rare statement Sunday rebuking the Trump administration for targeting the president’s political enemies, namely for launching a federal investigation into Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

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

Obama’s online statement went on to characterize the Republican administration’s crusade against Omar as “appalling.” He added, “The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.

“In those cases, the prosecutions either stalled or were dismissed for having no basis in law, and the same is likely to happen in this case. But not before Congresswoman Omar’s life has been turned upside down, her legal bills have piled up, and she’s been forced to spend time fighting unsubstantiated charges instead of serving the people of Minnesota.

“The fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views. Because if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.”

Or put another way, Team Trump’s radical offensive against the congresswoman represents a clear example in which “our core values may be at stake.”

There’s overwhelming evidence to bolster the former president’s case.

Federal investigators, acting at Trump’s behest and ignoring the 60-day “blackout period” before the election, seized the laptop, cellphone and passport of a sitting member of Congress as part of an apparent campaign to strip Omar of her citizenship and ultimately deport her in response to evidence that does not appear to exist.

Throughout history, there have been countless clashes between presidents and members of Congress, but there is no modern precedent for an incumbent chief executive trying to misuse the levers of federal power in the hopes of kicking a sitting elected lawmaker out of the country.

The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg added in her latest column, “This is more than just another persecution of one of Trump’s political enemies. Rather, his government is tacitly declaring the citizenship of all foreign-born people provisional, their Americanness something that can be revoked. It’s a frontal attack on the idea of constitutional equality. As Hannah Arendt wrote — a quote that the writer John Ganz reminded me of — ‘One is almost tempted to measure the degree of totalitarian infection by the extent to which the concerned governments use their sovereign right of denationalization.’”

Hours after Goldberg’s column ran, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin appeared on conservative media outlet Real America’s Voice and said the Republican administration is considering a possible “RICO case” against Omar, referring to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which has traditionally been used against organized crime figures.

For what it’s worth, The Washington Post reported last week that in 2019, Team Trump also ordered an investigation into Omar’s immigration records, though the “investigation was eventually abandoned” for lack of evidence.

Seven years later, the sequel to this abuse is ongoing — and significantly worse.

The post Why Obama felt compelled to condemn Team Trump’s crusade against Ilhan Omar appeared first on MS NOW.

About a month ago, JD Vance appeared on a conservative podcast and assured the hosts and their listeners that the Trump administration is “serious” about reducing the budget deficit.

Like so much of what the vice president tells the public, his rhetoric was discredited by reality. The New York Times reported:

The United States budget deficit approached $2 trillion in the 2026 fiscal year, its highest level since the pandemic, as spending on the military, safety net programs and interest on the debt dwarfed the Trump administration’s cost cuts, Treasury Department figures showed on Friday.

The widening gap between what the government spends and what it collects in taxes and other revenue comes at a critical moment. Investors are nervous about America’s surging debt load, along with stubborn inflation, and have driven up borrowing costs.

Roughly three weeks after the end of the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the Treasury Department reported that the government spent $1.99 trillion more than it took in. That massive deficit reflected an increase of roughly $217 billion from a year earlier.

There’s no great mystery as to why this happened — among other things, Republicans approved massive tax breaks last year and began financing the war with Iran in late February — and there’s no reason to believe the nation’s fiscal health will improve anytime soon.

As the public considers the implications of this, here are a handful of things to keep in mind:

The economic circumstances suggest deficits this enormous shouldn’t happen. When the nation is facing a crisis, such as responding to a pandemic or an economic crash, it makes sense for the government to take on more debt. But there was no actual crisis during the last fiscal year, making the roughly $2 trillion annual deficit that much more difficult to defend.

The problem is getting worse faster than anyone expected. When the nation’s overall debt reached $40 trillion a couple of months ago, The Washington Post reported that we’re racking up debt faster than earlier independent analyses thanks almost entirely to the cost of GOP tax breaks, the war with Iran and the White House’s failed tariffs agenda. The article added, “The faster accumulation of debt comes at a perilous moment. An array of concerns, including inflation, the war in Iran and rising debt levels around the world, are driving investors to dump government bonds.”

Trump promised voters a very different outcome. As a candidate in 2016, the Republican told voters he had unique expertise in budgetary issues that would enable him to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. Trump delivered the opposite results, adding nearly $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just one term, and most of that total was racked up before the Covid-19 crisis. As a candidate in 2024, he repeated his earlier promises, before again delivering the opposite results: Trump has added nearly $4 trillion in debt since returning to the White House early last year.

Eight years ago, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and reflected on the nation’s fiscal health. “We have $21 trillion in debt … a number that is unthinkable,” the president said in July 2018. “But that will go down very quickly.” Eight years later, the debt has nearly doubled.

Trump and congressional Republicans are to blame. For those concerned about the deficit and the debt, there’s no point in seeing this as a “both sides” issue. Republican policies made this happen.

Trump and congressional Republicans don’t seem to care. For decades, Republican officials have expressed hysterical concerns about “fiscal responsibility” every time there’s been a Democratic president. Indeed, younger readers might find this difficult to believe, but in the not-too-distant past, Republicans treated the budget deficit as one of the single-most important crises facing the country. The gap between what the government spends and what it takes in, GOP officials said, threatened to bankrupt the nation, crash the economy and ruin the lives of our children and grandchildren.

But as last year’s deficit nearly reached the $2 trillion mark, and the debt passes the $40 trillion mark, those same Republicans are silent on the issue.

Trump and congressional Republicans aren’t even pretending to have a plan to address this. It’s not as if the GOP has a bad plan to get the nation’s fiscal house in order; it’s that the party isn’t even trying to address the issue at all.

Earlier Republican warnings suddenly look ridiculous. Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, GOP officials said that if the national debt eclipsed the size of the overall economy, it would spell immediate doom. For the first time since World War II, the national debt has now eclipsed the size of the overall economy as Republicans pretend that the economy has reached its “golden age.”

Remember 1998? Around this time 28 years ago, Bill Clinton proudly declared that the deficit was officially gone, and record surpluses soon followed. At the time, the United States was on track to do the unthinkable: to pay off its national debt. Republican governance soon followed, which set us on a path to $40 trillion in debt.

The historical pattern is worth remembering. Despite the conventional wisdom about which party has credibility on fiscal issues, budget deficits have grown by massive amounts under every Republican administration (Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Trump), while shrinking under every Democratic administration (Clinton, Obama and Biden).

The next Democratic president needs to be prepared. Time will tell who prevails in the 2028 presidential election, but if it’s a Democrat, they need to understand that they’re inheriting a severe budgetary mess, which will be met by a new round of GOP hysterics about the mess that Republicans themselves created.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Massive budget deficit adds to growing list of Trump’s broken promises appeared first on MS NOW.

It was about a month ago when MS NOW reported on a Russian disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. midterm elections, featuring doctored selfie videos of Hollywood celebrities. The project — one of the first documented Kremlin-backed operations of this year’s election cycle — was specifically designed to undermine support for Democrats and to boost Republicans.

With only about two weeks remaining before Election Day, the efforts are apparently intensifying. Bloomberg News reported:

Russian disinformation operators are deploying an army of bots to inflate view counts of fictitious posts about celebrities and Democratic candidates ahead of the US midterm elections.

AI-fabricated video clips of well-known actors and musicians — including Robert De Niro, Julia Roberts and Cher — attacking Democrats began appearing on X in early September, some urging people to join a campaign dubbed #AllDemocratsAreCriminals. Scores of other clips have made false allegations of corruption and improprieties by Democratic candidates.

A related report in The New York Times noted that “an online influence operation backed by the Russian government has been stepping up its attempts to sow division in the United States.” The report added that the project has targeted Democrats “with negative content,” becoming “the latest effort by Russia to harm the party and support President Trump.”

It’s an important detail, not just because Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime appears desperate to help Republicans, but also because of the familiarity of the circumstances.

In 2016, Russia targeted U.S. elections. There used to be a bipartisan consensus on this obvious, uncontested fact.

In 2018, Russia targeted U.S. elections. Though Trump, for reasons that have never been explained, rejected his own country’s intelligence on the matter, the United States’ top national security officials made it categorically clear that Russia took deliberate steps to interfere in the midterm cycle.

In 2020, Russia targeted U.S. elections. In fact, intelligence officials told Congress about evidence that showed Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign for the express purpose of trying to secure a second term for Trump.

In 2022, Russia targeted U.S. elections. In fact, The Wall Street Journal reported a few years ago, “The Russian government and its proxies attempted to denigrate the Democratic Party and undermine voter confidence ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”

In 2024, Russia again targeted U.S. elections, specifically in the hopes of electing Republicans who would oppose American military aid to Ukraine.

And in 2026, it’s happening once again.

In each instance, Moscow wasn’t simply trying to sow chaos. As this unsubtle pattern unfolded, Russian operations specifically tried to help one party (Republicans) and hurt the other (Democrats).

Two year ago, Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, appeared on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” and said that there’s “plenty of reason to be concerned” about Russia trying to interfere in another American election.

Sullivan added, “[T]his is not about politics. This is about national security. It is about a foreign country — a foreign adversary — seeking to manipulate the politics and democracy of the United States of America.”

Two years later, the current White House national security adviser, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has invested far less time and effort into denouncing the Kremlin’s operations, and congressional Republicans tend to have effectively nothing to say about Russian intervention.

For its latest report, the Times spoke to a senior researcher at Graphika, a threat analysis company, who said the Russian tactics “give us a glimpse of what their objectives are,” adding, “They’re not targeting Republican candidates in the same way.”

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post As Election Day nears, Russia steps up efforts to boost Republicans appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* With just two weeks remaining in the election cycle and early voting underway in much of the country, the latest Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos survey offered Donald Trump another round of bad news: The president’s approval rating has reached a record low of 33% in this poll. But for Republicans, that’s not necessarily the worst part.

The same results included a generic congressional ballot and found Democrats with an eight-point advantage over the GOP, 52% to 44%. As recently as July, the same outlet showed Democrats with a three-point edge.

This dovetailed with the latest NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, which showed Democrats with a 10-point lead over Republicans on the generic ballot, 55% to 45%.

* Artificial intelligence-generated campaign advertising has become an intensifying problem in this year’s election cycle, but it’s not altogether a bipartisan problem: A New York Times analysis found that more than 80% of the ads created by AI “were produced by Republican campaigns or Republican-aligned political action committees.”

* In Ohio’s closely watched statewide races, the latest Bowling Green State University poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown leading incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted, 48% to 42%. A month ago, the same pollster showed Brown ahead by three points.

As for the state’s gubernatorial race, the same survey data found Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, leading Vivek Ramaswamy by the same six-point margin, 50% to 44%.

* In Nevada, retiring Republican Rep. Mark Amodei continues to tear into his own party’s would-be successor. The outgoing congressman reiterated over the weekend that he would “absolutely not” vote for David Flippo in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, adding that, as far as Amodei is concerned, his seat is “at risk” for flipping from red to blue.

* In Massachusetts, Shawn Oliver, the Republicans’ lieutenant governor nominee, suspended his candidacy over the weekend. One day earlier, he was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence and striking five parked cars. According to local police, Oliver also allegedly flipped his own car during the incident.

* House Speaker Mike Johnson said during an interview over the weekend that independent news organizations are secretly conspiring with independent polling firms to release deceptive survey data as part of a plot to “discourage” GOP voters. The Louisiana Republican did not appear to be kidding.

* The president held a campaign rally in Georgia late last week, where he insisted that Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff was “never elected” despite his 2020 victory. Trump added that the results were fraudulent, an absurd claim for which he offered no evidence.

* Though the U.S. Senate race in Mississippi continues to look like a real reach for Democrats, Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock is doing his best to rally support for local prosecutor Scott Colom in his race against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

* And in Maryland, where Republican Rep. Andy Harris threatened to have a student journalist arrested last week for recording him at a public Q&A, the far-right congressman was offered an opportunity late last week to apologize for his bizarre antics. Harris refused.

The post Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.19.26: Generic ballot polls offer Democrats more good news appeared first on MS NOW.

The question isn’t whether Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is failing, since the evidence of his incompetence is overwhelming. Rather, the question is whether the Pentagon chief’s failures have affected his standing.

The answer is readily available. A CNN poll released less than a month ago found Hegseth with a 34% approval rating, suggesting that the former Fox News host was as unpopular as Donald Trump — the president who chose him for the Cabinet. The same survey found Hegseth’s support among Republicans is lower than other prominent administration officials.

These results came on the heels of a related poll from Quinnipiac University, which found only 32% of Americans approved of how the defense secretary was handling his job, while 57% disapproved. To put that in context, a month before the war with Iran got underway, Hegseth’s net approval was 9 points underwater, but by mid-September, he was 25 points underwater.

With this in mind, and as Hegseth becomes something of a national joke, some Democrats appear to be taking advantage of the secretary’s faltering public support. The New York Times reported:

In the final weeks of a midterm congressional battle in which voters’ opposition to the war with Iran has become a major issue, Democrats are increasingly making Mr. Hegseth a main character in their campaign messaging.

It is an effort to turn one of President Trump’s most recognizable cabinet officials — and one who has been an unapologetic and visible cheerleader for a war that polls show is deeply unpopular — into a liability for Republicans’ fighting to keep their seats.

This is not to say every Democrat is incorporating Hegseth into their midterm messaging, but it’s happening enough to get noticed. Indeed, just last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries declared at a campaign rally, “One of the first things we’re going to do in the majority, we’re going to run Pete Hegseth out of town.”

The Times’ report added that Hegseth has been of particular interest to Democratic candidates who served in the military, running in districts with deep ties to the armed forces. From the article:

Leela Gray, a retired Army brigadier general challenging Representative Anna Paulina Luna in Florida, has called Mr. Hegseth an “unqualified frat boy.” Cait Conley, an Army combat veteran challenging Representative Mike Lawler in a competitive New York district, has called him a “disgrace.” And JoAnna Mendoza, a retired Marine running against Representative Juan Ciscomani in Arizona, has criticized his treatment of women in the military.

In South Carolina, Nancy Lacore, a retired three-star Navy admiral whom Mr. Hegseth removed as chief of the Navy Reserve last year without publicly explaining why, has made his leadership of the Pentagon an issue in her congressional campaign.

We’ll learn soon enough whether these campaign tactics are effective, but I’m struck by the historical oddity of the circumstances. Indeed, looking back at Hegseth’s recent predecessors — Lloyd Austin, Mark Esper, James Mattis, Ash Carter et al. — these secretaries, during their tenures, were not widely known to the American mainstream. There wouldn’t have been any point to including them in attack ads.

But in 2026, Hegseth’s public profile is much higher — and not in a good way.

The post As Hegseth’s public standing sinks, Democrats make him part of their midterm message appeared first on MS NOW.

As 2026 got underway, national polling didn’t just show that Donald Trump’s approval rating had sunk to embarrassing lows, it also showed a more specific problem: Roughly two-thirds of Americans were convinced the president simply had the wrong priorities.

Last month, we saw fresh evidence that this impression had actually intensified. A CNN poll found that 76% of Americans — a record high — agreed that Trump hadn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems. This dovetailed with a Quinnipiac poll that found that 68% of Americans believed he was not focused enough on “addressing the problems most Americans are facing.”

With roughly two weeks remaining before the midterm elections, and with early voting underway across much of the United States, it’s tempting to think the Republican Party’s leader and most powerful voice would be eager to disprove these impressions. Instead, Trump is doing the opposite.

The Associated Press reported:

President Donald Trump on Sunday announced plans to close a historic public golf course in the nation’s capital for 15 months and redevelop it despite a court challenge to his long-sought renovation.

Trump posted on social media about his intent to shutter the East Potomac Golf Course, not far from the White House, starting Nov. 15 to make it “one of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World.”

If the underlying story sounds at all familiar, it’s probably because the ongoing legal fight has generated a lot of headlines. Indeed, as recently as last week, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ordered the administration to stop its tree-cutting efforts at the golf course until Oct. 26. As MS NOW reported, that order came one day after a nearly four-hour hearing in which Reyes slammed the Trump administration for defying her previous order to give the court notice before taking down more than 10 trees.

On Sunday, the president nevertheless published a pair of items to his social media platform, explaining in some detail how excited he was to overhaul the golf course. Trump followed up with a third post early Monday morning, writing, “The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It’s as simple as that! … Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY!”

In the same missive, the president described the judge in the case as “a crazed lunatic” who, in his estimation, might be “insane.”

The list of problems is not short. For one thing, the White House appears to be in the midst of a rather brazen move to circumvent a federal court case. For another, Trump’s preferred plan is itself misguided. As The Washington Post reported:

The rendering Trump released alongside the announcement depicts a dramatically remade Hains Point, with a single 18-hole championship course stretching nearly from shoreline to shoreline. It bears little resemblance to the existing course — or to the more modest historic-restoration plan that government attorneys have cited in court.

The design also appears to eliminate Ohio Drive, the roadway that loops around Hains Point, a century-old grove of cherry trees and a historic miniature golf course. If implemented as depicted, the plan would reshape space used daily not only by golfers, but also by thousands of cyclists, runners, walkers, anglers, birdwatchers and other visitors.

What the president wants, in other words, effectively eliminates all of the things many local residents actually like about the East Potomac Golf Course, transforming it instead into yet another vanity project tied to Trump’s ego.

But let’s also not lose sight of the broader circumstances. Amid rising inflation, a stagnant job market and an ongoing war in the Middle East that Trump started but doesn’t know how to end, the president wants Americans to know that he’s investing time and energy into a priority that apparently matters to him: overhauling a public golf course.

“Trump started an illegal war, prices are through the roof, Americans are hurting, and yet he lays awake thinking about how to screw our D.C. neighbors and take over their public parks,” Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland wrote via Bluesky over the weekend. “Out of touch doesn’t even begin to describe it.”

The post As midterms approach, Trump focuses on closing D.C. golf course for 15-month renovation appeared first on MS NOW.

Though the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act suffered from some important flaws, its central purpose was sound: The proposal was created to impose sanctions and other economic penalties against Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia and its trading partners. It cleared Capitol Hill with relative ease, and two days later, Donald Trump signed it into law, despite the Republican president’s record of weakness toward Moscow.

Late Friday — a time politicians frequently use to release information they hope will go unnoticed — the American president halted implementation of the law he had signed almost exactly one month earlier. The Associated Press reported:

President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that puts on hold a sweeping new sanctions package targeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.

Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation.

In a written statement, the Republican said he had decided to block implementation of the law because, according to the White House, it’s in “the national interests of the United States.”

Trump made no effort to explain why, exactly, it was in the United States’ interest to waive sanctions on Russia.

The condemnations from Democrats were immediate. “Trump just gave Putin the best birthday gift he’ll get this year,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “By giving the Russian economy life support, Trump’s deal with the devil keeps getting dirtier. There’s nothing America First about Trump caving to Putin and exempting Russia from U.S. sanctions.”

The New York Democrat added, “Americans need relief from skyrocketing prices. Instead, Trump is aiding and abetting a dictator who has helped Iran target U.S. troops in the Middle East.”

The backlash, however, wasn’t limited to the president’s critics. On the contrary, several prominent congressional Republicans, as well as former Vice President Mike Pence, slammed the move and publicly urged Trump to reconsider.

Predictably, he ignored the calls. In fact, on Sunday afternoon, the American president published a defense of his policy to his social media platform, insisting that he was “in the process of negotiating Peace,” and that he believed implementing U.S. law and penalizing Russia would likely drive Putin’s government “away from the bargaining table.”

The same statement slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Joe Biden, but it included no comparable criticism of Putin, whom the missive didn’t refer to at all.

At face value, Trump’s written rationale is difficult to take seriously. Indeed, to an almost cartoonish degree, he’s been showering Putin with unearned gifts for quite a while — offering sanctions relief for Russian diesel fuel, echoing Kremlin talking points, pumping billions of dollars into the Russian economy, peddling false accusations against Ukraine, ignoring existing U.S. laws that ban Russian oil imports, looking the other way on Russia aiding Iran during the ongoing U.S. war, delivering diplomatic victories for Moscow, etc. — and getting nothing in return except more deadly attacks.

The benefits Trump is delivering to his Russian counterpart, in other words, have not advanced the peace process in any way.

But if Trump’s stated reason doesn’t make sense, what’s the actual reason for his humiliating weakness toward Putin? The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait recently ran through some of the possible explanations, ranging from Putin running a successful flattery campaign to the Republicans’ general sympathies for authoritarian dictatorships to potential corruption.

Let’s also not forget that as recently as 2020, former Republican Sen. Dan Coats, who served as Trump’s director of national intelligence during his first term, conceded in an interview with Bob Woodward that he spent much of his tenure as DNI wondering whether Putin had something on Trump — a concern that intensified over time — that somehow compromised the American president.

“How else to explain the president’s behavior? Coats could see no other explanation,” Woodward wrote.

Looking ahead, a possible Democratic majority in Congress could launch a meaningful investigation into alleged Russian influence campaigns and Putin’s influence in Washington. But in the meantime, The Wall Street Journal reported that Putin is proposing some kind of summit between Russia, China and the United States, which would apparently decide Ukraine’s future.

Ukrainian officials, under Putin’s proposed plan, would not be welcome at the discussion about their own country’s future.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest pro-Putin move prompts bipartisan backlash and awkward questions appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Evidently, the American president is disgusted by Ukrainian strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, but only after having expressed indifference to Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which sparked retaliatory measures. I wonder why that is: “U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday that Ukraine’s announcement to end the truce on Russian energy facilities was ‘a disgrace,’ following reports that an oil refinery was hit in Russia’s Ryazan region.”

* The latest on the Silver Rail Elementary School shooting: “Three children and one adult were killed Thursday in a shooting at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon. The suspected shooter, a 16-year-old male, was shot dead by an armed bystander, police said.”

* A provocative and potentially important Reuters report: “The order to limit a satellite system used by Ukraine ​for battlefield communications and drone operations came from inside the White House, according to two US officials and a Western official briefed on the matter.”

* On a related note, Trump was asked who decided to pause Starlink access temporarily for the Ukrainian military. The president replied, “I don’t know if it was anybody, because it wasn’t me, and I don’t think it was [Elon Musk].”

* In related news, it’s tough to know whether to believe anyone on Putin’s team, but this bears close scrutiny: “Russia and the US are discussing a ​range of new joint projects including nuclear-powered data centers in the wake of last week’s agreement on ‌diesel, President Vladimir Putin’s investment envoy said on Friday.”

* The questions aren’t going away: “Congressional Democrats on the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees are demanding President Donald Trump explain why Ukrainian forces’ access to SpaceX Starshield services was restricted earlier this week.”

* A crisis averted: “Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi was worshipping at a Hindu temple in suburban Chicago over the weekend when a 19-year-old man allegedly attempted to carry out a mass shooting, the Illinois Democrat said Thursday. Illinois State Police said they arrested Alexandros Paporakis of Palatine on Sunday, hours after authorities received a tip that he was planning to attack people of Indian descent at the Sri Venkateswara Swami (Balaji) Temple in Aurora.”

* The suspension shouldn’t be the only step: “An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been placed on leave after striking a man with his vehicle in Houston on Saturday, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson confirmed to MS NOW.”

* Do you ever get the impression that FIFA has just given up on its public reputation? “FIFA’s controversial Peace Prize could be scrapped at the end of the year — only 12 months after U.S. President Donald Trump received the inaugural award. At a FIFA Council meeting in Zurich on Thursday, it was decided that the governing body’s football social responsibility committee will now be tasked with assessing the merits of what was supposed to be an annual prize.”

* Remember when former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was tapped to serve as a special envoy to the Shield of the Americas? She’s now out of that role, serving instead as an adviser to a deputy secretary at the State Department. That’s quite a climb down from leading a federal Cabinet agency with hundreds of thousands of employees and a budget of more than $100 billion.

* On the eve of the latest No Kings events: “‘No Kings,’ the coalition known for blanketing the country in protests against President Trump, is setting its sights on a new target as midterm elections approach: voter turnout. On Oct. 17, organizers around the United States will hold ‘No Kings: Vote Early’ events to promote early voting and help people form voting plans like requesting absentee ballots, checking on their voter registrations or finding neighbors to help them drive to the polls.”

Have a safe weekend.

The post Friday’s Mini-Report, 10.16.26 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.”

Q: "Will Katie [Zacharia] continue to be in the administration?"Trump: "Yeah. In some form. But maybe a more pleasant form…I just think the press has been very tough on Katie and I said, 'There's no reason for you to have to do this.'…We'll make a determination."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-10-16T17:25:17.043Z

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.

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.

Trump suggests he is going to pardon everyone, including himself: "I'm allowed to do a self-pardon … I don't want to see people that work for me go through years of nonsense"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-16T00:20:10.130Z

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.