Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie the midterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.

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

The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.

“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.

The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.

In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.

The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.

“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”

The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including by filing a lawsuit against California election officials last week.

Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”

A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”

Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.

Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.

CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET):
A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Donald Trump’s administration bows to Russia in disturbing ways, top MAGA influencers in the “America First” movement are getting in on the Russophilia by increasingly wedding themselves to leaders and nations that are effectively under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.

And a newly announced conference in Serbia is a prime example.

On Monday, the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed plans to hold a convention in Belgrade in November. Other recent CPAC conventions abroad have effectively served as authoritarian pep rallies, and the Serbia gathering seems like it will be no different. CPAC is touting an appearance by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has earned the moniker “Little Putin” for his deference to the Russian strongman.

It’s notable that this convention was announced amid reporting, including from MS NOW’s David Rohde, about former Trump campaign officials’ advocacy on behalf of pro-Putin Serbian nationalists.

Vučić is comparable to Trump in that he is viewed by some as a Putin stooge who has opposed sanctions on Russia and effectively aided the Kremlin’s efforts to destabilize the European Union. And, like Trump, he has been the standard-bearer for an increasingly illiberal political party, one that has sought to manipulate electoral systems in its favor.

Given all of this, it’s no wonder why MAGA world adores Serbia’s current leadership: This is a movement broadly infatuated with authoritarianism. But it’s noteworthy that, much like with Russia, even some conservatives are wary of Serbia’s antidemocratic backsliding.

Ahead of Serbia’s parliamentary elections this weekend, a bipartisan group of seven senators — including Republicans from Iowa, Mississippi and North Carolina — issued a warning about Vučić’s party.

“Unfortunately, both Serbian and international election observers found serious infringements to the integrity of the previous parliamentary elections in 2022. We are now seeing similarly troubling signs ahead of the October 25 vote,” the senators said in a statement. “Reports of unlawful wiretapping of opposition members and attempts to discredit and undermine election observation missions are deeply concerning, and Serbian authorities must ensure a level playing field for all parties and open access to the polls for all citizens.”

It’s telling of the MAGA movement’s broad disdain for democracy that one of its most prominent activist groups is openly choosing to associate with such a party. And it speaks to a movement that seems more obsessed with expanding its influence in foreign lands than addressing the numerous crises their dear leader has created for Americans at home.

The post Republicans are taking CPAC to Serbia as the party bows to Putin appeared first on MS NOW.

Most Americans probably understand that politics can be an ugly business. As long as there have been campaigns, there have been candidates and parties trying to appeal to voters’ worst instincts by aiming for the gutter.

But once in a while, a campaign ad comes along that manages to disgust a wide variety of decent people, regardless of party or ideology. MS NOW reported:

In a new, unaired attack ad against Amy Acton, the Democrat running for governor of Ohio, her estranged mother speaks directly to the camera to accuse her of lying about her past.

“Don’t vote for people who lie,” says Donna Arthur — who married a man whom Acton accused of sexually abusing her as a child — in the video.

The campaign team for Vivek Ramaswamy, Acton’s Republican rival, confirmed to The Associated Press that it produced the ad and plans to spend $4 million airing it, apparently indifferent to the condemnations.

“It’s not surprising that Vivek Ramaswamy has stooped to such a despicable low as to attempt to turn the sexual abuse Amy endured at 12 years old from our birth mother’s husband into a political talking point,” Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, said in a statement.

“After he was arrested and Amy and I were removed from their custody, our birth mother stayed married to Amy’s rapist until he died,” Stearns added. “This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core — a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants.”

Plenty of Republicans also slammed the vile attack, including former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, who said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.”

One day later, however, JD Vance traveled to Ohio, in large part in the hopes of boosting Ramaswamy, who’s trailed Acton in several recent statewide polls, with time running out in the election cycle. Any chance the vice president might take the high road on the year’s most offensive attack ad?

Evidently not.

On Wednesday morning, Vance, himself an Ohio Republican, initially said the propriety of the ad (or lack thereof) was “not really my concern.” But he didn’t stop there.

“I have to admit that I’m a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America,” the vice president said.

In other words, Vance isn’t disgusted by the ad, which features a woman who sided with her alleged rapist husband over her own daughter, whom she calls a “liar”; Vance is disgusted by Republicans who have a problem with that ad.

Soon after, the vice president headlined a rally and went even further, insisting that the commercial “calls it out like it is.” Vance went on to accuse Acton of somehow controlling independent news organizations, adding that Ramaswamy has never complained about any of the criticisms he’s faced — which might be credible if anyone had ever targeted the GOP nominee with an ad this abhorrent.

We’ll see soon enough whether the commercial ends up backfiring on Ramaswamy, who almost certainly wouldn’t have pursued such an attack if he thought he was likely to win the gubernatorial race. But in the meantime, Vance just faced a test of his personal character, and he flunked.

The post JD Vance is ‘disgusted,’ not by Ramaswamy’s vile ad but by its bipartisan critics appeared first on MS NOW.

A group of veterans has made very serious claims about contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, a U.S. Marine Corps training facility in North Carolina. The fact that Donald Trump brought this up at his latest campaign rally in the state was unexpected, but more important still is what the president promised to do.

“[I]f we win the House and the Senate,” he said, referring to Republicans, “I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible and get it off the books and get it finished.”

Trump added moments later, however, “If we don’t win, there’s no money. If we do win, you’re getting it.”

For now, let’s not dwell on the fact that, in the recent past, it would’ve been considered a real controversy for an incumbent to talk about “directing” his Justice Department to do much of anything.

Instead, what we’re left with is another extraordinary example of Trump’s radical approach to transactional politics: He’ll deliver worthwhile results, the president keeps saying, but only if voters make him happy by delivering the election results he wants to see.

Consider the recent pattern:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: Trump told an Ohio audience that his administration would “very strongly” consider the state for the Space Force Academy, but only if Republicans win in the midterms.

Oct. 3: At the same campaign rally, the president said he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they don’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elect a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (On Tuesday night in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

The Camp Lejeune comments were outrageous, but they were clearly part of an unsubtle pattern.

In case this isn’t obvious, there’s nothing about a Democratic-led Congress that would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to any of these states. The president made the policy commitments conditional anyway, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the kinds of priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies he wants to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy. Evidently, the president doesn’t care.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s fixation on transactional politics becomes an election-season scandal appeared first on MS NOW.

As part of an extended riff on his animosity toward Europe and the NATO alliance, Donald Trump did express a degree of gratitude toward the traditional U.S. allies about a development that only happened in the president’s imagination.

NATO members, the president asserted, “were nice enough to give us Greenland, despite all the bad talk.”

“‘Oh, he’s not going to get it,’” Trump added, mocking his critics. “We got it; we got Greenland.”

No, we didn’t.

To be sure, the rhetoric was wrong but familiar. At a campaign event in Arizona last week, the president also said that Greenland “was owned by Denmark,” but it has since been added “to our beautiful plate.” Earlier in the day, Trump posted an item to his social media platform in which he referred to “our new and beautiful Greenland,” suggesting U.S. ownership of the Arctic island.

Five days earlier, the president headlined a rally in New York, where he boasted to attendees, “I also, by the way, got Greenland. I hope you’re happy about that.”

I’m not in a position to say with certainty whether Trump is deliberately trying to mislead the public or is genuinely confused about something even he ought to be able to understand. But to the extent that people might be tempted to believe the president, it’s probably worth emphasizing that the United States didn’t “get” Greenland; it’s not “ours”; and at no point was it added to our “plate.” As The New York Times reported in September:

On Tuesday, he signed a document that paves the way to expanding the U.S. military presence on the island, opening new bases. But it explicitly stops short of conveying any territory to the United States. And no one — especially Denmark, which governs the vast but mostly empty space — wanted to emphasize that point, for fear that Mr. Trump might renounce the agreement he had just hailed as “tremendous for Europe and for the United States.”

For Mr. Trump, it was a major retreat. He first raised the possibility of buying Greenland during his first term and never let go of the idea.

I can appreciate why the president finds this embarrassing. He did, after all, make a “100%” guarantee to Americans that he would acquire the island — nine months before he settled for a deal that gave him what he already had.

Joseph Cirincione, the vice chair of the Center for International Policy and a longtime expert on nuclear policy, described the deal as a “complete farce” designed to do little more than “soothe Trump’s unstable ego.”

The more the president peddles nonsense about his imaginary acquisition of Greenland, the more obvious it becomes that he’s still tending to his unstable ego after one of the more notable foreign policy fiascos of his second term.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post ‘We got Greenland’: Trump pushes a made-up line about ownership of the arctic island appeared first on MS NOW.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s application to enforce its ban on gender-affirming medical care for federal inmates after a judge blocked the policy.

The denial came in an unexplained order. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted they would have granted the administration’s application, but they also did not explain their reasoning.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said the high court’s action “protects incarcerated trans people from the administration’s attempt to steamroll over constitutional rights for now.” But she added, “the fight to uphold the dignity and respect our community deserves is far from over.”

Urging the justices to lift the judge’s order while it appeals, the administration argued that the public interest favors such a result because the policy “provides appropriate, individualized treatment for gender dysphoria, while disallowing only interventions that are medically unnecessary.”

Lawyers for inmates with the American Civil Liberties Union implored the high court not to back the government’s attempt to “overturn a three decades-long status quo.” They said the government turned to the justices at this preliminary stage of the litigation not because it has a pressing legal claim but rather because it is upset about how the district judge applied settled law to the facts in this case.

Over the past couple of years, the Supreme Court has ruled against transgender people in a series of cases involving sports, the military, passports and gender-affirming care for minors.

When he granted a preliminary injunction for inmates in June, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, said he didn’t want to wade into “the culture war being waged against transgender individuals.” He said he was merely making a legal decision that the government had failed to follow proper procedures when it implemented the new policy.

The Washington judge called the government action “arbitrary and capricious” because it “failed to seriously consider its own experience providing gender-affirming care to inmates for years under its prior policy.” Lamberth issued a subsequent order in August maintaining the injunction, finding that despite officials’ claims, it wouldn’t cause safety issues to continue inmates’ medical care while the litigation proceeds.

Over dissent from a Trump appointee, a federal appellate panel declined to lift Lamberth’s injunction.

In the administration’s application to the justices, Solicitor General John Sauer said the Bureau of Prisons had previously provided both what he called “mental-health treatment (such as psychotherapy and psychiatry services)” and “sex-rejecting interventions (such as sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions, and social accommodations).”

Sauer said the government concluded it could no longer justify the second category for two reasons: that such interventions weren’t supported by the latest evidence and that they “raised security and prison-administration concerns that outweighed whatever limited benefits they had.”

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

The post Supreme Court rejects Trump administration on gender-affirming care in prison appeared first on MS NOW.

At an unrelated event in the Oval Office, Donald Trump wasn’t asked about Sen. Elissa Slotkin, but the president apparently felt the need to lash out at the Michigan Democrat anyway.

“The senator from Michigan made a statement yesterday that was amazing, where they want to frighten people, young people from ever working in the Trump administration or a Republican administration, that they want to go and they want to frighten people,” he said.

Trump added that “even the most liberal commentators” were amazed by Slotkin, whom the president described as a “stupid person” who “made a statement that was very, very dangerous.”

Then, taking it still further, Trump said the senator “should be tried for what she did,” although he didn’t elaborate on what crime he believes Slotkin had committed.

It’s likely that many of those who heard the president’s remark had no idea what he was talking about, even if the Republican’s message was likely well received in some far-right circles.

What Slotkin actually said wasn’t especially remarkable. Last week (the president got the date wrong), the senator spoke at an academic event at the University of Chicago, where she made a brief, unscripted comment about accountability for those who work within a corrupt bureaucracy and discouraged younger people from joining corrupt bureaucracies.

“I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration?’” she said. “I want them to be like, ‘Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, and so let me avoid participating in that.’”

The senator added that meaningful congressional oversight should focus not just on Trump, but on officials who’ve “enabled him” and are “doing his bidding.”

As the discussion continued, Vox’s Astead Herndon noted that Trump has put loyalists in key positions, making it difficult to hold him accountable, at which point Slotkin made the case that shining a light on White House corruption would likely discourage people from joining the administration in its final two years.

The Michigan Democrat made these rather anodyne comments on Tuesday, Oct. 13, and no one seemed to care. No articles about Slotkin’s remarks appeared in any major news organizations the next day, and no one had reason to think presidential threats of prosecution would soon emerge.

But as The Atlantic’s Jon Chait noted, it was roughly five days after the event that “a tidal wave of conservative outrage suddenly crashed over” the senator, with condemnations coming from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and a variety of conservative media voices. Trump himself told reporters earlier this week, “Slotkin said that there should be prosecutions in order to scare people from going into politics.”

Except that never happened. The president attributed made-up comments to the senator, since the benign truth wasn’t good enough to sustain a credible smear.

Stepping back, a few elements to this nonsensical “controversy” stand out. First, the degree to which Trump and his party appear terrified of any scrutiny, accountability or congressional oversight into corruption allegations is tough to miss.

Second, Republicans are so desperate to make the case that Democrats are trying to weaponize government — even as Republicans themselves brazenly weaponize government to a degree without modern precedent — that they’re forced to concoct absurdities like these.

And third, this is a classic example of how the right manages to manufacture outrage out of nothing. “So here’s how the game works,” The New Republic’s Greg Sargent explained. “Right-wing propagandists dishonestly clip a Democrat’s comments to conjure up the impression of a dark plot to persecute supporters of Donald Trump. A bunch of them post on it with an algorithmic boost from Elon Musk. Soon the sheer noise itself vaults the story out of the right-wing ecosphere and into mainstream coverage, where the evenhanded airing of both sides’ ‘positions’ transforms it into a ‘controversy.’ Paydirt!”

As for whether Trump’s Justice Department, which already launched one failed effort to prosecute Slotkin, agrees that the senator “should be tried for what she did,” watch this space.

The post How (and why) Republicans manufactured a faux controversy about Elissa Slotkin appeared first on MS NOW.

Sono state le immagini della telecamera di sorveglianza presente sulla tromba di una scala a salvare un piccolo cucciolo di cane in Massachusetts. La polizia di New Bedford, osservando quei video, si è accorta che una donna passando sulle scale si era fermata per picchiare il proprio cane.

Il cucciolo in questione è Ace, messo in salvo proprio dalla polizia di New Bedford, che ha arrestato la donna di 32 anni che lo picchiava, accusandola di maltrattamento di animali. “È stato trovato con visibili lividi sulla testa e sul corpo, incluso un gonfiore alla bocca” ha spiegato la polizia.

Dopo essere stato portato in una clinica veterinaria per le cure, è stato trasferito nel rifugio per animali Forever Paws a Fall River. Qui il cane è stato ribattezzato Puffin, come spiegato in un post Facebook. “Dato che gli stiamo offrendo un nuovo inizio, gli abbiamo dato anche un nuovo nome. Un nuovo inizio, una tabula rasa: brindiamo ai nuovi inizi per questo cagnolino!” hanno spiegato i volontari di Forever Paws.

Il cane, nonostante quello che ha passato, sembra tranquillo e simile a molti altri suoi coetanei: “Puffin è davvero un cucciolo come tanti altri. È vivace e pieno di energia, ha ancora bisogno di aiuto per imparare a comportarsi bene al guinzaglio e sta appena scoprendo la sua voce e come usarla… e la usa spesso”.

L'articolo “È stato trovato con lividi sulla testa e sul corpo, incluso un gonfiore alla bocca”: Puffin, il cane salvato da una donna che lo picchiava, ora cerca un nuovo proprietario proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

• I recently visited LongHorn Steakhouse as the chain reports positive sales growth this year.
• Many casual-dining chains are struggling, but LongHorn is performing surprisingly well.
• I thought the food was high quality and a great value for the cost.

LongHorn Steakhouse is having a moment.

While many casual-dining chains continue to struggle, LongHorn has posted some of the strongest sales growth in Darden Restaurants' portfolio.

In the fiscal first quarter, which ended August 30, LongHorn same-store sales rose 6.2% from a year earlier, outpacing sister chain Olive Garden, whose same-store sales rose 1.1%. LongHorn's overall sales across all locations increased by nearly 11% to $861 million, making it Darden's fastest-growing major chain that quarter.

During the company's earnings call, CFO Raj Vennam said LongHorn's first-quarter sales growth reflected both stronger sales at existing restaurants and the expansion of its footprint. LongHorn grew from 595 to 624 restaurants over the past year.

LongHorn's success is not a recent comeback, but rather a steady rise to the top. In the preceding quarter, which ended May 31, LongHorn's same-store sales rose 9.5%, while total sales increased nearly 22% to more than $1 billion. Darden credited a record-breaking Mother's Day weekend and strong lamb-chop sales for the results.

The chain has now posted positive same-store sales for 22 consecutive quarters, and its sales at existing restaurants have climbed 17% over the past three years.

Still, it's a tough time for casual dining.

Applebee's same-store sales fell 1.8% year-over-year in its most recent quarter, while Cracker Barrel's sales at existing locations fell 2.1% and its total revenue declined 2.2%.

In an environment where chain restaurants are constantly competing for customers, I wanted to find out what about the Texas-inspired steakhouse chain was drawing people in.

I visited LongHorn for the first time and was surprised by the quality of the food, generous portions, and overall value for the price.

I tried LongHorn Steakhouse for the first time to see what the hype was about.

LongHorn Steakhouse has quietly become one of casual dining’s biggest success stories, and recently outpaced its sister brand, Olive Garden, in same-store sales growth.

I’d never been before, so I brought a friend along to our nearest location in Queens, New York, to see whether the food, atmosphere, and value lived up to the hype.

The restaurant felt much warmer and more polished than I expected.

I expected a fairly standard chain-restaurant experience, but the entryway felt inviting right away.

The stone accents, dark wood, and low lighting gave it a cozy, classic steakhouse atmosphere. It was casual, but it did not feel cheap. I could see why it would potentially work for both casual weeknight dinners and slightly more special celebrations.

Despite visiting on a Friday night during the dinner rush, we were seated quickly in a booth at the busy shopping center location.

The dining room was busy, but it still felt comfortable and relaxed.

The restaurant had plenty of tables, yet it did not feel overly crowded or chaotic. The warm lighting made the large dining room feel more intimate. It was definitely family-friendly, but couples and groups of friends were also dining there.

About halfway through our meal, one of the tables next to us broke into a rendition of "Happy Birthday" for a guest.

I also thought the vibe was much more polished than a typical casual chain. It was more on par with chains like Red Lobster than slightly more casual ones like Chili's or Applebee's.

The menu had a surprisingly broad selection beyond just steak and sides.

LongHorn’s menu is centered on steak, but there were plenty of chicken, seafood, salad, burger, and sandwich options, too.

Even though I went in wanting to understand the chain’s steakhouse appeal, there were enough tempting appetizers and sides that narrowing down our order was harder than I expected.

My friend and I started off with a round of cocktails.

A steakhouse dinner calls for a drink, and the classic "Perfect" margarita ($11.49) was a refreshing — and surprisingly inexpensive — way to start the meal.

It was ice-cold and citrusy, served in a generously sized glass with an extra shaker on the side. My friend ordered the Texas tea ($10.99), LongHorn's version of a Long Island iced tea, which she said was sweet and not too strong.

We were both impressed by the price and serving size of our drinks — they were on par with what we'd spend at a dive bar in Brooklyn, but with much better service and flavor.

The complimentary bread was a nice start to the meal.

The bread arrived warm with a side of butter before our appetizers hit the table. It had a slightly sweet, honey-wheat flavor and a tender texture.

It was simple, and probably could have had a better crust — but it was free.

The stuffed mushrooms were one of the meal’s first real surprises.

We ordered the white cheddar stuffed mushrooms ($12.29) as an appetizer, and they arrived bubbling hot in a rich, creamy four-cheese sauce that reminded us slightly of Alfredo pasta sauce.

The mushroom caps were tender without becoming soggy and had a slightly salty flavor.

The cheesy filling gave them a savory, indulgent flavor that made them feel like a true steakhouse starter.

It was the kind of appetizer that disappeared quickly, and one I'd definitely order again. I had to remind myself to save room for the rest of our food.

Around the same time as our appetizer, our server brought out my salad course.

The lettuce was crisp, the generous helping of croutons added good crunch, and the dressing had plenty of flavor. It was a classic steakhouse Caesar; it did exactly what it needed to do, but it wasn't anything mind-blowing.

It was also more than big enough to share with another person as a way to add something fresh before our richer entrées.

The ribeye steak and loaded baked potato made for a filling, indulgent entrée without an over-the-top price tag.

For my entrée, I ordered the ribeye steak ($30.79), which came with the aforementioned Caesar salad and one side. I chose the loaded baked potato, which came topped with cheddar cheese, sour cream, bacon, and green onions.

The steak arrived with a flavorful sear and a side that felt like a meal in itself. Together, the plate felt hearty and indulgent without being unnecessarily over-the-top. It was easy to see how a diner could leave feeling like they got their money’s worth.

The loaded baked potato was fluffy inside and piled high with toppings.

The potato was rich and comforting, with a soft, fluffy center, while the potato's outer shell was perfectly crispy.

I appreciated that LongHorn did not skimp on the toppings. It helped make the entrée feel more complete and substantial, without having to upgrade to a premium side.

The steak was surprisingly tender and well-seasoned.

The steak had a savory, well-seasoned crust that added a lot of peppery flavor, but the true magic lay within.

Inside the tender ribeye, the meat was buttery and unbelievably juicy. It was not trying to be a high-end steakhouse steak, but it was extremely satisfying for the price. I ordered the steak medium-rare, and it came out at the right temperature.

This was the dish that made LongHorn’s popularity click for me.

Instead of ordering a main entrée, my friend ordered a side of roasted Brussels sprouts and the mac and cheese.

The crispy Brussels sprouts ($6.49) were roasted just enough to caramelize while still holding their shape and flavor.

The mac and cheese was a standout part of our meal.

The steakhouse mac and cheese ($6.49) had a rich, creamy sauce and a browned topping that added texture, while bacon bits added even more savory, smoky flavor.

It was exactly the kind of comforting side I want with a steakhouse meal.

If you weren't ordering it as a main dish, the portion was also plenty large enough to share, especially alongside everything else we ordered.

I preferred this chain-restaurant mac and cheese to others I've tried.

By the end of dinner, I understood completely why LongHorn is winning over value-conscious diners.

The food was more polished than I expected, the portions were generous, and the experience felt like a real sit-down dinner rather than a quick chain-restaurant meal after a day at the mall.

We ordered two drinks, an appetizer, a salad, a steak, and multiple hearty sides, yet our bill for two still came in under $100 before tip. With the tip, we paid $103.83.

By the time we left, I could see exactly why LongHorn has become a go-to for diners who want a steakhouse meal without steakhouse prices — and I'll definitely be back for more.