EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told Fox News Digital that he plans to pursue an effort to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., if the Justice Department finds her guilty of immigration fraud.
Fine, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, made the comments after Fox News Digital reported that a federal court filing identified Omar under the name "Ilhan Nur Said Elmi," also listing "Ilhan Abdullahi Omar" as an alias. The filing has raised questions about Omar’s identity and immigration records but does not establish that she committed fraud.
"I assume that she’s not a citizen, so we might not even have to do that," Fine said. "You can’t be in Congress if you’re not a citizen of the United States, but if it isn’t automatic, I absolutely will demand expulsion immediately."
Omar is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She was born in Somalia and became a U.S. citizen in 2000. She has denied wrongdoing and called the investigation politically motivated.
Fine said Democrats would attempt to block any Republican effort to censure or expel Omar.
"I don’t think Democrats think you should have to be American. They don’t believe in borders," Fine said. "They’ve made that clear. They don’t believe in America."
The House has the constitutional authority to expel a member, but doing so requires a two-thirds vote. A criminal investigation or allegation alone does not automatically remove a member from Congress.
Fine also criticized Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., who in September introduced the Reimagining Safety Act, legislation that would dismantle the Department of Homeland Security and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, while preserving some of its functions under a new agency, the Department of Community Safety.
"Look at this bill filed by the congresswoman from Chicago, where she doesn’t believe we should have borders, border protection or the ability to deport anyone," Fine said.
Fine also criticized Democrats who have called the Justice Department’s investigation into Omar politically motivated, pointing to the separate inquiry into her financial disclosures. The investigation into her finances began under former President Joe Biden in 2024, a detail that Fine claimed Democrats have intentionally overlooked.
"Democrats don't get held accountable for anything, and they agree on this agenda that is anti-American and anti-citizen," Fine continued.
Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence was searched by Homeland Security Investigations agents on Oct. 12 as part of a federal investigation into possible false statements on immigration and naturalization documents. Federal authorities have also issued grand jury subpoenas to members of Omar’s family and seized her cellphone, according to The Associated Press.
President Donald Trump is holding back on sweeping new economic penalties Congress handed him to squeeze Russia.
He is betting that keeping those sanctions in reserve will help bring Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table, a strategy drawing criticism from Republican allies amid questions about whether Moscow believes he will ever use them.
Over roughly a week, the administration waived most of the new Russia sanctions and tariffs enacted last month while separately easing restrictions on Russian diesel exports, moves one foreign policy expert described as Trump's most significant effort yet to unwind economic pressure on Moscow.
"It's probably the biggest effort that the Trump administration has made to start unwinding the U.S. sanctions architecture that's been in place against Russia since 2022 or even earlier in some cases," Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, told Fox News Digital.
Trump argues that imposing the new penalties could drive Russia away from peace negotiations. But Brands said repeatedly holding back economic punishment risks convincing Putin that Washington is unwilling to follow through on its threats.
"The threat of imposition may lose some credibility if over a period of time you've demonstrated that you would prefer not to impose those penalties in the first place," Brands said.
The decision has drawn criticism from Republicans who helped advance the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, including Trump allies who worked with his White House to pass it.
Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who played a leading role in passing the legislation and joined Trump in the Oval Office when he signed it last month, said Tuesday the administration should be turning up economic pressure on Moscow.
"It is my belief that we need to use economic firepower to help drive Putin to the table," Britt told Semafor. "I believe that Russia is at the darkest point that they've been at in this entire war, and now is the time for us to turn up the pressure."
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said Congress had coordinated the legislation's timing with the White House, making Trump's decision to waive most of its new penalties particularly surprising.
"This was an act of Congress that we had worked with the White House on," Capito said. "We had timed this to when the president and the White House felt it was a good time to move forward with this, where it could be effective."
Other Republicans were more blunt in their criticism.
"Beyond irresponsible," Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., wrote on X. "What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?"
"It's unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day," he added.
Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., the lead sponsor of the legislation named for her late brother and a Trump-endorsed candidate, said she would "choose to keep the pressure on Russia" because "I don't trust Putin and I don't trust Russia."
The Graham Act, signed into law in September, provided for steep tariffs targeting Russia and major purchasers of Russian energy, along with sanctions on Russian financial institutions and foreign entities doing significant business with them.
Congress also included presidential waiver authority, which Trump invoked to put most of the law's new Russia penalties on hold.
Brands said including a waiver was not necessarily a mistake, even if it ultimately allowed Trump to avoid imposing the penalties lawmakers had sought.
"It's really tough to craft a sanctions or tariffs bill that forces the president to do something, and typically you don't want to do that because there are always circumstances one can imagine in which you might want to be able to waive sanctions," he said.
Trump has defended his decision as necessary to keep Putin at the negotiating table.
"My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don't want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table," Trump wrote Sunday.
In his formal certification to Congress, Trump said imposing the Graham Act penalties now "would impede ongoing U.S. efforts to negotiate a durable and comprehensive peace." He left open the possibility of imposing them later to "incentivize resolution" of the war.
Brands acknowledged that holding sanctions in reserve can give a president bargaining power, but questioned whether Putin believes Trump is prepared to follow through.
"The challenge is that it's been clear for about 18 months now, since Lindsey Graham started pushing this bill in the first place in the early parts of 2025, that the president simply doesn't have much appetite for squeezing the Russian energy export system to the degree that people like the late Senator Graham envisioned and desired," Brands said.
The administration has separately eased existing restrictions to allow more Russian diesel onto the market, a move intended to relieve pressure on global fuel prices.
Trump has criticized Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries, arguing they are straining diesel markets. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has described sanctions relief as a "carrot" that could encourage Russia to de-escalate.
Brands said the immediate financial benefit to Moscow from diesel relief is probably "fairly marginal." The more consequential decision, he argued, was Trump's refusal to activate the broader sanctions and tariffs Congress authorized.
"There's a potential for pretty serious pressure to be exerted if he had used both the sanctions authorities and essentially the secondary tariff authorities to go after purchasers of Russian energy products overseas," Brands said.
Such measures could "put a fairly significant squeeze on the Russian war economy" while discouraging other countries from doing business with Moscow, he added.
Brands acknowledged that squeezing Russian energy exports could further strain global energy markets when Trump is focused on lowering fuel prices at home.
But he argued that the larger risk lies in what Putin concludes about Washington's willingness to sustain economic pressure.
"Putin's theory of victory in Ukraine for a long time has been that at some point the West, particularly the United States, will get tired of the costs of confrontation with Russia and support for Ukraine," Brands said.
The concern, he explained, is less about the immediate revenue Moscow gains from additional diesel exports than the possibility that easing restrictions reinforces Putin's belief that Washington is growing tired of confronting Russia.
"The risk you run here has less to do with the precise dollar or ruble amount that Russia will gain by being allowed to export some additional diesel than with the strategic signal you're sending that, in fact, the U.S. is getting tired of applying economic pressure against Russia and that the U.S.-Ukraine relationship is entering another period of conflict and divergence," Brands said.
Brands sees little prospect for a negotiated settlement in the immediate future and argued that changing Putin's calculation would require convincing him that the costs of continuing the war outweigh the potential gains.
"I think the only way you get there is by continuing to support Ukraine so it can take an increasing toll on Russia on the battlefield and by finding ways of ramping up rather than ramping down the economic pressure on Russia," Brands said.
Trump's waiver does not eliminate sanctions against Russia that predated the Graham Act, and the administration can revisit the new penalties.
The dispute now centers on whether keeping those penalties in reserve strengthens Trump's hand with Putin — or diminishes their value if Moscow doubts he is willing to use them.
A New York man was arrested after he was allegedly captured on video stealing campaign signs belonging to Republican congressional candidate Anthony Constantino while driving his employer’s vehicle.
Josef Marris was charged with two counts of criminal possession of stolen property, according to the Essex County Sheriff’s Office. He was also fired from East Branch Organics, according to Constantino’s campaign.
Constantino, who is running in New York’s 21st Congressional District, said the alleged thefts were intended to intimidate his supporters.
"My campaign has lost more than $100,000 to sign theft and vandalism," Constantino told Fox News Digital. "There are now multiple attempts to intimidate my supporters by people who are clearly pro-crime and pro-violence. The media needs to stop pretending this is a both-sides problem."
Constantino’s campaign alleged that Marris carried out the thefts on behalf of Democratic candidate Blake Gendebien. Gendebien’s campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
Marris has described himself as a communist and an Antifa supporter, according to social media posts reviewed by Fox News Digital. In April 2023, he posted an image of the three-arrow symbol, which has historically been associated with several socialist and anti-fascist movements.
The symbol alone does not establish that Marris is a member of Antifa or that Gendebien’s campaign had any connection to the alleged thefts.
The incident comes as Gendebien leads Constantino in a closely watched race to succeed retiring Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., in the 21st Congressional District.
One of the district's media stations, North Country Public Radio, has flipped the congressional district from "solid" Republican to "likely" Republican.
Two nonprofits linked to Marxist tech tycoon Neville Roy Singham have rejected a congressional ultimatum to turn over financial records, accusing lawmakers of using a foreign-influence investigation to target their political views and violate their First Amendment rights.
The People's Forum Inc., a New York City-based activist hub, and BreakThrough News, a far-left nonprofit media outlet, fired back in letters to Tuesday the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which threatened to depose their leaders — and Singham personally — if the organizations failed to comply with earlier subpoenas for financial records.
The People's Forum blasted the latest congressional crackdown as a "MAGA-led witch hunt."
BreakThrough News and its supporters accuse the committee of targeting the outlet over its coverage of Israel and immigration enforcement, while lawmakers maintain the probe concerns the organizations' finances and structure.
The showdown comes as the Republican-led committee, headed by Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., investigates whether millions of dollars flowing through Singham's network of tax-exempt nonprofits are being used to advance Chinese Communist Party interests in the United States.
"This approach is tantamount to holding the staff of BreakThrough News hostage," attorneys for BreakThrough News wrote in their Oct. 20 response, accusing the committee of threatening seven newsroom employees with depositions unless the outlet abandons its constitutional objections.
The attorneys also challenged the committee's foreign influence allegations, pointing to its reference to Singham, who lives in Shanghai, alongside foreign principals.
"Mr. Singham is a U.S. citizen," the attorneys wrote.
The standoff raises the prospect of Singham being personally deposed by congressional investigators after the committee identified him among 21 potential witnesses, including nonprofit executives, activists and journalists associated with the two organizations and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, a Massachusetts-based Marxist think tank that has not publicly released a response to the latest demands.
The People's Forum similarly condemned the committee's latest demands in its Oct. 20 response, accusing lawmakers of using the threat of depositions against eight staff members as retaliation for asserting its First Amendment rights.
The committee did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
WATCH: Subpoenaed pro-China media outlet blasts House Singham probe on "Democracy Now!"
On their websites, BreakThrough News and The People's Forum also urged supporters to donate to help fund their legal defenses against the probe.
"This is an escalation of the same MAGA-led witch-hunt," The People's Forum wrote in an Oct. 21 statement beneath a black graphic declaring, "We won't surrender our First Amendment rights."
Both organizations also accused the committee of repeatedly changing its rationale and ignoring their legal objections but said they remained open to narrower requests.
The responses come as BreakThrough News has also been accused of sympathetically amplifying recent protests and unrest across Europe, including demonstrations in France that descended into violent riots, with protesters torching cars and clashing with police.
The Singham-funded outlet advertised an online discussion, "Europe's Youth Uprising," declaring that "a rebellion is sweeping Europe" and portraying the demonstrations as a youth uprising against rising living costs, austerity and military spending, according to a Fox News Digital report.
Press freedom groups announce support
Ten press freedom and civil liberties organizations, including PEN America, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Society of Professional Journalists, have also backed BreakThrough News, accusing the committee of targeting its political views and warning that forcing journalists to testify could threaten press freedom.
"Rep. Smith's shameless targeting of BreakThrough News for editorial viewpoints that he dislikes shows a complete disregard of the First Amendment," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement published by BreakThrough News.
In their Oct. 20 letter, the groups called on the committee to abandon its investigation into the outlet and refrain from issuing further subpoenas.
The committee alleges that Singham routed money through shell companies and donor-advised funds, obscuring the original source of contributions to the three nonprofits. Singham, an American-born Marxist tech tycoon who now lives in Shanghai, sold his software company, ThoughtWorks, for an estimated $785 million in 2017.
A previous Fox News Digital investigation traced at least $278 million from Singham into six core U.S. nonprofits that served as funding hubs within a broader international network of activist groups, media organizations and think tanks promoting socialist, communist and pro-China causes.
Of that funding, $22.44 million flowed to The People's Forum, $16.76 million to Tricontinental and $1.098 million to BreakThrough BT Media Inc., the parent organization of BreakThrough News.
The three received approximately $40.3 million combined, according to Fox News Digital's investigation, which the committee cited in its earlier correspondence.
The committee said it is examining whether existing tax laws adequately protect against foreign influence in the nonprofit sector and whether Congress should strengthen those laws.
Committee's position
"Shanghai Singham has poured millions of dollars into these groups to take advantage of America's nonprofit sector and promote Chinese Communist Party propaganda. That much is public. What these groups are fighting to keep hidden is even more concerning," Smith said in an Oct. 13 statement.
"Either these organizations turn over the documents, or their leaders will answer the Committee's questions under oath."
The committee has not publicly identified evidence showing the organizations are concealing information related to foreign influence. Fox News Digital sought an update from the committee following the Oct. 20 deadline but had not received a response as of publication.
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In Ohio’s closely watched gubernatorial race, JD Vance publicly urged Republicans to stop criticizing GOP nominee Vivek Ramaswamy’s abhorrent attack ad, but a growing chorus of conservatives is ignoring the vice president’s appeal.
On Thursday morning, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine of Ohio denounced the ad featuring the estranged mother of Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, calling it “deeply, deeply troubling.” The governor added, “It’s wrong to run this ad. I would urge Ramaswamy’s campaign to take this down.”
The comments came a day after Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who is running for state auditor, similarly said during a local radio interview, “I probably wouldn’t run an ad like that, but every candidate gets to make their own decision.”
For his part, President Donald Trump defended the ad and said it doesn’t have “anything to do with” Ramaswamy, despite the fact that the Republican candidate’s campaign created and aired the ad.
Trump on Vivek Ramaswamy's ad featuring Amy Acton's estranged mother:I don't know anything about it. It's a very unusual situation to have a mother hate a daughter that much. But I don't think that has anything to do with Vivek.
Hours after the president’s comments, the latest Fox News poll found Acton narrowly leading Ramaswamy, 50% to 48%, though the poll was conducted before the latest controversy.
* Speaking of Ohio, in the state’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the aforementioned Fox News poll found former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown with a 5-point advantage over appointed Republican incumbent Sen. Jon Husted, 52% to 47%.
That said, Brown is facing a daunting new challenge: Politico reported that a super PAC funded by the cryptocurrency industry is dumping an additional $9 million into the effort to defeat him, raising the group’s total spending in the race to a staggering $55 million.
* Though Mississippi was assumed to be a safe red state, Trump’s political operation confirmed that the president will hold a rally Monday in the hopes of boosting Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, who’s facing an unexpectedly tough challenge from local prosecutor Scott Colom, the Democratic nominee.
The news coincides with an Axios report that said Senate Republicans are so concerned about the Mississippi race that it’s “weighing a cash infusion” for the contest.
* In Minnesota’s closely watched U.S. Senate race,The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan did not qualify to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa when she graduated from college, as she had previously claimed, but Phi Beta Kappa soon after provided evidence of her membership in the academic honor society, defusing the story.
* And it appears New York’s gubernatorial race is slipping away from Republicans: The latest Quinnipiac University poll found Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul with a double-digit lead over GOP nominee Bruce Blakeman, 55% to 41%.
By any fair measure, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has long been at roughly the center of the Democratic Party’s mainstream. Few observers could credibly accuse her of being a conservative Democrat along the lines of former Sen. Joe Manchin or of being a progressive firebrand trying push the party to the left.
I mention this because Clinton took a policy position this week that’s likely to raise some eyebrows.
In the latest episode of “High Stakes,” a limited series from podcast host Kara Swisher and Clinton, the discussion turned to possible Supreme Court reforms, and the former presidential candidate raised some practical concerns about term limits on Supreme Court justices — before expressing support for an alternative solution to the status quo.
“I think, instead, we should seriously look at expanding the court while the Democrats are in power,” Clinton said. “You know, it used to be that you’d have one justice for each circuit. We now have 13 circuits, we should have 13 justices. So I would be in, you know, favor of looking at that and see if we could make it work.”
The former secretary no longer holds public office, so it’s not as if she would be in a position to vote on such a proposal, but let’s not miss the forest for the trees: When Hillary Clinton expresses public support for Supreme Court expansion, it’s evidence that a reform idea has reached the political mainstream.
She’s not alone. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina is also widely recognized as a prominent voice representing the Democratic establishment — the 17-term incumbent has spent much of his career as a member of the party leadership in the House — and in late August he also publicly endorsed expanding the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13.
“I think we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand,” Clyburn said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” adding that “13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen, it would be a good number to have on the court.”
Clyburn’s comments came just a few weeks after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke at the National Association of Black Journalists’ convention and voiced support for “dramatic” Supreme Court reforms.
“The Supreme Court, the conservative right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party,” the New York Democrat said, adding that the justices seem to believe “the status quo is acceptable. It’s not.”
Jeffries didn’t elaborate on which specific reforms he had in mind, though the Democrat, positioned to be the next House speaker if his party reclaims the majority, said there are “a variety of different options that are on the table” and he’s not prepared to “foreclose any single one of them.”
If it seems like leading Democratic voices are embracing similar stances with increasing frequency and enthusiasm, it’s not your imagination. Just two weeks before Jeffries made his comments, former Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the National Urban League’s annual conference and said, “We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices, like we have 13 district courts.”
A month earlier, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro voiced support for “radical reform” of the Supreme Court, which came on the heels of Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia agreeing that “all options have to be on the table” when it comes to changing the high court.
In the coming months, there is likely to be plenty of debate among advocates about the kind of changes to pursue and the political viability of the competing ideas. It’s also a safe bet that many reformers will disagree about the details. But the bottom line remains the same: In Democratic politics, the conversation has shifted rapidly to how, not whether, to reform the Supreme Court.
As many in the party start eyeing the 2028 presidential race, don’t be surprised if this issue becomes a litmus test for many Democratic voters.
Concerns regarding potential political interference and partisan challenges have heightened ahead of the scheduled opening of the new Congress on Jan. 3.
Concerns regarding potential political interference and partisan challenges have heightened ahead of the scheduled opening of the new Congress on Jan. 3.
Rep. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla., is asking the Atlantic Coast Conference to disclose its policies governing online sports betting by conference employees, referees and other individuals connected to its competitions.
In a letter sent Thursday to ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips and the conference's board of directors, Patronis said the request was prompted by the ACC's support for the Protect College Sports Act, a sweeping federal proposal addressing NIL rights, revenue sharing, athlete health and safety, transfers and other issues in college athletics.
"Seeing as the ACC is asking Congress for help with NIL, I believe we must have transparency regarding each body's policies and how they navigate online betting," Patronis wrote.
The Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act, S. 4668, by a 77-22 vote on Sept. 28. The legislation now awaits consideration in the House. Supporters describe the bill as an effort to establish national standards for NIL compensation, revenue sharing, scholarships, medical coverage and the preservation of women's and Olympic sports.
Patronis asked the ACC to provide its online gambling policies before Congress returns in November, including rules governing staff members, officials and "other interested parties." He also questioned how the conference is protecting the integrity of college sports as sports betting becomes more widespread.
The NCAA has continued to enforce restrictions on wagering that could affect the integrity of college competition. The association says violations can result in severe penalties, including the loss of athletic eligibility, while warning that betting-related harassment and pressure can affect athletes, coaches and officials.
At the same time, the NCAA's Division I Administrative Committee has moved toward allowing athletes and athletics staff to bet on professional sports, while preserving restrictions involving college competitions. The NCAA said conferences and schools may impose additional rules of their own.
The ACC has been involved in lobbying efforts surrounding the Protect College Sports Act, which conference leaders have described as a way to create more consistent national rules for college athletics.
Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar said she plans to move out of her Washington DC apartment after federal agents raided her residence last week as part of a larger immigration investigation.
“I mean obviously, I can’t continue to live there,” Omar told MS Now in an interview that aired on Wednesday. “So we have to figure out where to move to, because our address has been public and with the death threats that I deal with, it’s no longer going to be feasible to be in that house and have my kids, like, visiting off and on, having people track them.”
New designation of the Land of Standing-Up Rocks, known for its historic rock spires, passed with bipartisan support
An area of towering rock spires in south-eastern Arizona known among Native Americans as the Land of Standing-Up Rocks has become the nation’s newest national park.
Legislation to create Chiricahua national park was sent to the White House and Donald Trump signed it on Tuesday. It passed Congress with bipartisan backing and is now the 64th US national park.
Federal authorities arrested a 17-year-old Texas boy accused of plotting to assassinate Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, and carry out a separate terrorist attack in North Texas on behalf of ISIS, according to a local report.
The teenager, who has not been publicly identified, was arrested on Oct. 5 after acquiring a firearm, according to federal law enforcement sources cited by WFAA.
"I am grateful to the FBI and law enforcement for stopping this threat," Self said in a statement posted on X.
"My family and I are safe, and I remain focused on serving the people of Texas' 3rd District," he continued. "Preserving our constitutional republic from radical Islam means accepting the costs that come with itâname-calling, threats, and worse."
"Our Founders believed this country was worth the sacrifice," Self added. "I served 25 years in the military because defending freedom was worth the sacrifice. This only strengthens my resolve. I will not back down."
Self spoke about the situation to CBS News Texas following the arrest.
"When we knew about it, they had him," Self said, admitting he had limited knowledge of what went on.
"The FBI, through the Capitol Police, only tells us so much," he told CBS, although he did note, "I understand that they've known about this kid for a while."
According to WFAA, the teenager allegedly planned to target Self at an event last Saturday.
Federal investigators also believe the suspect was planning a separate attack on behalf of ISIS, the outlet reported.
When asked by WFAA whether his public positions on Islamic extremism might explain why he was targeted, Self said he could not be certain.
Democrats are now more trusted than Republicans to handle the economy, inflation, immigration, crime — even national security.
The New York Times released a poll, conducted jointly with Siena University, on Wednesday showing just 34% of registered voters in the United States approve of the job that Donald Trump has been doing as president, while 60% disapprove. The Times noted that this is a lower approval than that of any president at this point before a midterm, with the lone exception of Harry Truman, who limped into the 1946 midterm elections with a 33% approval rating, which the Times noted was “at the dawn of modern polling.”
The numbers are even worse for the president if you compare the difference between his approval and disapproval rating — his “net” rating, as we call it here at FiftyPlusOne — to that of his predecessors. In October 1946, Truman’s approval in our historical average hovered between 35% and 38% — about where Trump is now — but “only” around half of Americans disapproved of him.
Fourteen days before the 1946 midterms, Truman’s net approval stood at −10.3 (37.9% to 48.2%). That is much better than Trump, who, as of our average on Wednesday afternoon, has a 34.8% approval and 62.0% disapproval rating — for a net of −27.2.
Trump approval rating: The latest polls
MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.
This comparison makes Trump the most unpopular president of all time, and it isn’t close: The previous record for worst-ever presidential approval before a midterm cycle belonged to George W. Bush in 2006, at −19.3. That was the “thumpin” year of 2006, when Democrats gained 31 House seats and five in the Senate amid widespread backlash to the Iraq War and the federal mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath. Trump is eight points below that level — and 17 below his own standing at this point in 2018, when Democrats gained 40 House seats.
It is not hard to explain this drop in views of the president. Voters elected Trump in 2024 largely because of economic anxiety resulting from rising costs under Joe Biden. But the president has delivered a hard-right agenda — tariffs, mass-deportation tactics — without bringing down the cost of living.
In a CNN/SSRS poll released back in July, 73% of Americans said Trump had not paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems — a record high. Just 27% said he had the right priorities.
That damage has also spread from the president to his party’s reputation — and trust in it to handle those issues. Wednesday’s Times/Siena poll found Democrats ahead by eight to 20 points on the economy, cost of living, gas prices and healthcare. And that’s not a one-poll fluke. FiftyPlusOne compiled every available poll asking which party Americans trust more on a given issue — Gallup back to 1951, plus ABC/Washington Post, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN and others more recently — and averaged net trust within each two-year cycle, weighting polls taken closer to Election Day more heavily.
The results are shown in the graph below as the gap between the percentage of Americans who said they trust the Democrats and Republicans on each of six key issues. (Positive values indicate Americans are more likely to trust Democrats than Republicans).
Start with the economy. In 2022, Americans trusted Republicans over Democrats on the economy by 14 points in our average; in 2024, it was by 10 points. Today, Democrats lead by six points — a 20-point swing in four years, and the party’s best showing since 2008. Gallup’s long-running measure tells the same story: 51% of Americans now say Democrats will do a better job of keeping the country prosperous, versus 37% for Republicans, the widest Democratic lead since 2007.
The shift on prices is even sharper. Republicans led on inflation by 13 points in 2024. Democrats now lead by 10 — a 23-point swing, and the best Democratic showing according to data going back to 1990.
Immigration has gone from the issue where the GOP posted its best cycle on record — a 14-point Republican lead in 2024, in data going back to 2006 — to a three-point edge, and polls from the latest quarter are roughly even. MS NOW reported the administration’s crackdown is pushing Latino voters away. Republicans still lead on border security and crime, but by far less than they did: 15 points on the border, down from 26, and eight on crime, down from 16.
Even national security, a Republican calling card for decades, has flipped. Gallup now finds 46% of Americans trust Democrats more to protect the country from international terrorism and military threats, compared with 42% for Republicans — the first Democratic lead since 2007. As recently as 2023, Republicans led by 22 points.
The polls indicate Trump has squandered his party’s advantage on several issues it has dominated for decades. The view from political science is that issue advantages take decades to build — but evidently, only a year to crumble.
Low-info or low-engagement voters — the ones only starting to pay attention to the races in the weeks immediately prior to the elections — tend to react more to the general vibes of the incumbent than particular issues. If that holds, and these voters are turning in now to a president with a worst-ever approval, that will bode well for Democrats in a few weeks.
Control of the House: The latest polls
MS NOW’s polling data partner FiftyPlusOne weights its average by poll quality and recency. Full results are available here.
Faced with these numbers, Republicans may be looking for an escape hatch from the damage Trump has done to their party. They may yet get one by the next presidential election, but are unlikely to get one before votes are counted for the midterms next week. In recent weeks, Trump has held a half dozen unhinged rallies throughout the country that are likely to do little to reassure voters about his performance on the economy, cost of living or foreign entanglements.
If the polls are right, this failed strategy could result in one of the largest popular-vote victories for the Democrats since Watergate.
Democrats believe circumstances have aligned for them to win a slew of competitive elections in the state
Mary Peltola’s campaign to represent Alaska in the US Senate has taken her to parts of the massive state’s interior that are inaccessible by road and on the frontlines of the cost-of-living crisis she hopes will make her the first Democrat to win the seat in nearly two decades.
She has been to towns where paper towels retail for $40, a half gallon of oat milk goes for $21 and the cost of a new freezer can be quadruple what it is in the state’s largest city, Anchorage, simply because it’s so complicated to get there. Along the Arctic Ocean, she’s heard of communities where power bills have climbed to $1,500 a month because they rely on generators for power and the Iran war has pushed the cost of diesel to new heights.
Frustration with a sprawling fraud scandal has cut Peggy Flanagan’s poll lead – could ex-NFL reporter Michele Tafoya win a first statewide election for Republicans in 20 years?
As Democrats fight to regain control of the US Senate, hopes are rising in states – from Kansas to Texas – where they have not prevailed in decades. But in Minnesota, where Republicans have not won statewide election since 2006, the contest for an open Senate seat is closer than expected.
Should Peggy Flanagan – the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor – win the election, she will be the first Native American woman to serve in the US Senate. But history has not yet been made. The closely watched Cook Political Report shifted its rating on the race this week from “likely Democrat” to “lean Democrat”.
Regardless of the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, any party that wins the majority will have done so because of the independent vote. For the past several elections, this cohort has been the crucial swing vote that ultimately decides the election. Independents are the kingmakers.
If Democrats win big on Nov. 3, expect a familiar story. Pundits will call it a mandate. Party leaders will say voters want their agenda. They will be wrong.
I have spent my career in partisan politics, and I keep seeing the same mistake. Both parties read the results of a protest as an endorsement.
Here is why. Independents do not fit neatly into a partisan box. They are not secret Democrats, and they are not secret Republicans. They agree with each side on some things and with neither on others, which is exactly why neither party can claim them.
That does not mean they lack convictions. Independents, like most Americans, have coherent views on politics and policy. And these positions are widely shared and present opportunity for meaningful legislation. On energy, 70% of Americans want government to actively expand supply: more energy, lower prices, less pollution. On immigration, 77% want legal immigration maintained or expanded, focused on the skills the economy needs. Respect our laws and welcome those who contribute.
On technology, 83% want parents to have the legal right to see and control what their kids do on social media. On spending, 73% want to bar Congress from using accounting tricks that hide the long-term cost of a bill. On corruption, 78% support term limits for members of Congress.
Put those together and the agenda is clear. Live within our means. Keep our promises. Win the future while protecting our communities, kids and liberties. Build a government accountable to people, not parties. That is not the progressive wish list, and it is not the Republican platform either. A vote against whoever is in charge is not a vote for anyoneâs program. It is a demand for these things.
Look at what independents are actually upset about. The border is still unresolved after years of promises. Energy costs keep squeezing family budgets. And artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping jobs and daily life while Congress offers speeches instead of a plan. These are not left or right complaints. They are complaints about people in charge who are not getting results.
Independents are now the largest bloc of American voters. They decide close elections, and they have no loyalty to either team. They vote for whoever seems least likely to make things worse. Two years ago, that was one party. This year it may be the other.
The numbers tell the story. Roughly two-thirds of independents say Washington does not hear them. That is not a number that describes people who have found a new political home. It describes people who feel abandoned and are looking for the exit.
For a blue wave to occur, it will rest on independents who are holding their noses. They will be voting for Democrats because the alternative looks worse, not because they have embraced the progressive wish list. Treating that vote as a blank check is how a party loses the same voters two years later.
Consider crime. Most Americans, whatever their party, want safe streets and a justice system that works. Imagine House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stepping to the microphone to announce a serious, commonsense crime bill. Fund good policing. Go after repeat violent offenders. Protect due process. It would not be a radical idea. It would be a reasonable one.
That single act would change the national story. Independents would take notice. It would say the party is willing to govern from the center and listen to people who do not agree with it on everything.
But that bill will not come, and the reason is not hard to see. A party that wants the support of the middle is being pulled by a left flank that treats a compromise on public safety as betrayal. Groups like the Democratic Socialists of America hold enormous sway over the energy and the primaries. Jeffries cannot move toward the center without a fight inside his own coalition, and so he does not try.
That is the real danger for Democrats. The very independents who may hand them a majority will be watching to see what they do with it. If the answer is a sharp turn toward the activist left, those voters will leave just as fast as they arrived.
Republicans should not take comfort either. If they lose, it will be because they too failed to listen. Both parties have spent years competing for the loyal base and ignoring everyone else. The result is a country in which most voters feel they are choosing between two disappointments.
There is a better path, and it is not complicated. Secure the border and fix the legal immigration system. Lower energy costs by building what we need. Set sensible guardrails on AI before the technology outruns us. Do these things in a way that respects voters of every stripe, and independents will reward you. Ignore them, and they will punish you, whatever letter follows your name.
This is why just a few handfuls of independents can entirely change the way we view and conduct politics. A growing share of the country is independent, yet very few members of Congress are. That gap is the story behind the story this November.
When the votes are counted, the winners should ask a hard question. Did voters choose us, or did they simply reject the other side? The honest answer will decide whether this election is a turning point or just another swing of the pendulum.
Login
