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.

Expanding the Court is the moderate position

— Thor Benson (@thorbenson.bsky.social) 2026-10-21T17:47:34.491Z

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’d 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, although 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.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hillary Clinton joins growing chorus in support of Supreme Court expansion appeared first on MS NOW.

Over the past decade or so, Donald Trump hasn’t exactly been subtle about his support for Vladimir Putin, but in recent weeks, the American president has gone to almost cartoonish lengths to reward his Russian counterpart.

The list includes instances in which the Republican offered sanctions relief for Russian diesel fuel, echoed Kremlin talking points, pumped billions of dollars into the Russian economy, peddled false accusations against Ukraine, ignored existing U.S. laws that ban Russian oil imports, looked the other way on Russia aiding Iran during the ongoing U.S. war, and delivered diplomatic victories for Moscow — all in exchange for nothing except more deadly attacks.

On Wednesday morning, however, Trump finally claimed to have secured a concession of sorts from the Russian leader. In a statement published to his social media platform, the American president said Stephen Hubbard, a 74-year-old retired teacher who had been imprisoned by the Putin government, had been released from detention and was headed home.

After some pointless and gratuitous whining about the Biden administration, Trump wrote that Putin agreed to free Hubbard “out of respect” for the American president, adding that the United States “was not required to give anything in return — an unprecedented situation for Russia.”

Just 12 minutes later, the Republican published a follow-up item, which read, “Numerous people, who requested that sanctions be immediately imposed on Russia, have called to apologize to President Trump in that they didn’t know that he was negotiating the release of Stephen Hubbard, a truly big and important deal for the U.S. If sanctions would have been placed, certainly those negotiations would have come to a complete and total halt.”

Putting aside the fact that those calls of apology almost certainly didn’t happen in reality, the second message clearly contradicted the first. After saying his administration didn’t have to give Russia anything to secure Hubbard’s release, Trump effectively conceded that he had to waive sanctions on Russia in order to secure Hubbard’s release.

Hours later, at an unrelated White House event, he did it again.

TRUMP: We gave nothing in exchange for Stephen. We never give anything in exchange for hostages.TRUMP LITERALLY MOMENTS LATER: If I implemented sanctions on Russia, Steven wouldn't be coming out right now.

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-21T19:33:20.698Z

“We gave nothing in exchange, which is very rare,” the American president boasted. “We never give anything in exchange.” Moments later, he added that if he had implemented sanctions on Russia, as required by the U.S. law he recently signed, Hubbard “wouldn’t be coming out right now, he’d be in there for another 20 years.”

Trump seemed entirely oblivious to the obvious tension between claiming that he made no concessions, except for the concessions he made.

During a Wednesday afternoon Q&A with reporters, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins pressed him on this point, subtly trying to explain to Trump that, based on his own explanation, he obviously did give Putin something in return for Hubbard’s release.

Apparently frustrated by the cognitive dissonance, Trump decided to resolve the dispute by telling Collins, “You’re a low-IQ person. You’re a dummy.”

Hours later, Russia launched a new round of attacks on Ukraine’s capital, killing one person and wounding 22, as part of an assault that targeted civilians. A day earlier, Russia also unleashed another missile and drone blitz of civilian areas in Ukraine, killing at least four people.

As recently as Monday, Trump told reporters, “Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine, they haven’t been doing much.” The White House has not yet explained why the Republican routinely sounds like he’s reading from a script written by the Kremlin.

The post Trump struggles to keep his story straight on prisoner release from Russia appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Stephen Hubbard is headed home: “Russia has released a retired American teacher who had been imprisoned on charges of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Wednesday at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg.”

* In related news: “Special envoy Steve Witkoff heaped praise on Russian President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg on Wednesday, the latest sign that Ukrainian and European efforts to get Washington to ramp up pressure on Russia to end the war are failing. … ‘You talk so much about my president, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that, I commend you, and I thank you again,’ Witkoff said.”

* Even some Republicans criticized Witkoff’s gushing praise for the head of a government that imprisoned Hubbard in the first place: “WTF, Steve? Look up the definition of ‘humanitarian,’’’ Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., posted on X. “You should go back to Ukraine and ask the families of the children Putin has kidnapped and murdered whether they agree your friend Putin is a ‘humanitarian.’” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, responded, “Putin is stone cold killer.”

* In the Middle East: “The US State Department has ordered some diplomats and family members ​to depart from its missions in Saudi Arabia ‌and is planning to move out family members from a number of other US missions in the Gulf, US officials told Reuters.”

* Crisis conditions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Health officials in California and Washington, facing outbreaks of measles this past spring, asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May to validate a test that can diagnose 500 cases in eight hours. They did not hear back for two months.”

* An intensifying climate emergency: “Losing more ground in the fight against climate change, humanity is heading for a hotter world than experts projected last year — and the United States is a big reason for that, a new United Nations report says.”

* Good for Kagan for speaking out: “With Americans deciding the congressional balance of power in November’s midterm elections, Justice Elena Kagan is reminding the nation of how the Supreme Court’s decisions have shaped the ballot. It’s an antidemocratic shape, according to the Obama-appointed justice’s remarks Tuesday at Catholic University’s law school in Washington.”

* I’m with the majority on this one: “A majority of Americans say artificial intelligence is a bad thing for society and about two-thirds oppose the construction of new data centers in the U.S., with opposition even higher to building data centers in people’s own communities, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.”

* Facebook’s parent company: “Meta is finally being forced to pay for its near-decade-old falsehoods about the Cambridge Analytica scandal that saw millions of users’ data harvested for political purposes. On Wednesday, a judge in New Mexico ordered the social media company to pay a $25 billion penalty following a jury’s determination in late September that the company’s executives broke state laws with knowingly false statements they made in the wake of the scandal.”

* Speaking of New Mexico, state Attorney General Raúl Torrez “has filed a civil lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein’s personal lawyer, Darren Indyke, and accountant, Richard Kahn, accusing them of helping to facilitate and conceal Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 10.21.26 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.

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.

Reporter: "Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign put out a controversial ad featuring his opponent's mother…was [that] appropriate?"Vance: "I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans…whining more about that ad than they are about what…Democrats want to do to the United States of America."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-10-21T16:25:47.443Z

“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.

Trump on Camp Lejeune water contamination claims: "If we win the House and Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible … if we don't win, there's no money."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-21T00:56:42.020Z

“[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.

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

* With less than two weeks remaining in the election cycle, and with early voting underway in much of the country, a new national poll from The New York Times and Siena University offers nothing but good news for Democrats.

For example, the survey found Democrats with an 11-poing advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, 52% to 41%. The same poll showed Democrats ahead on every major issue, as well as big leads on questions such as which party “understands the problems facing people like me,” best represents “the working class,” can “fix the problems facing people like me” and “keeps its promises.”

The latest national CNN poll pointed in largely the same direction and showed Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot by 10 points, 49% to 39%.

* As if Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas weren’t already struggling enough, an MS NOW analysis of the incumbent’s campaign-finance filings found that the senator still has no one on his campaign payroll, reinforcing ongoing concerns that Marshall is using his taxpayer-funded Senate staff for campaign purposes.

* In Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist poll found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed with a narrow lead over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 50% to 48%.

* Donald Trump held a campaign rally in North Carolina on Tuesday on behalf of Senate hopeful Michael Whatley, though the president seemed to concede that he expects former Gov. Roy Cooper to win the race. “He’s going to become your senator and it’s crazy,” Trump said, referring to the Democratic nominee.

* Though several billionaires have already taken steps to give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections, one notable billionaire is suddenly stepping up on behalf of Democrats: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new $80 million investment in support of Democratic efforts to reclaim a congressional majority.

* In case campaign ads created by artificial intelligence weren’t bad enough, Democrats are fighting GOP-led efforts to use AI-generated robocalls ahead of this year’s elections.

* Florida Republicans are so concerned about a new Democratic ad highlighting the Hope Florida scandal that GOP officials are threatening to criminally prosecute television stations that air the commercial.

Meanwhile, in Florida’s gubernatorial race, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new $1 million investment in support of Rep. David Jolly’s candidacy. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton campaigned with Jolly in the former president’s first appearance of the cycle.

* And in New Hampshire’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, former Sen. John Sununu has a new attack ad that takes aim at House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, despite the fact that the California Democrat hasn’t been a congressional leader in nearly four years, and despite the fact that she’s retiring this year. This won’t help the Republican candidate shake off criticisms that he’s more focused on the past than the future.

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.21.26: Democrats’ lead grows on the generic ballot 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.

Trump says NATO was "nice enough to give us Greenland. We got Greenland."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T18:44:47.130Z

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.

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.

Trump says that Sen. Slotkin "should be tried … we'll see what happens"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-20T19:06:12.877Z

“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.

As recently as July, few political observers were willing to give South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race a second look. Sen. Lindsey Graham had prevailed in a Republican primary, and the longtime incumbent was on a glide path to another term.

Roughly three months later, in the aftermath of the senator’s unexpected death, the political world’s approach to the race is now spectacularly different. Indeed, Donald Trump is headed back to South Carolina for another campaign rally with appointed Sen. Darline Graham — the president will appear in Pickens County, which he carried by 53 points two years ago — as part of an apparent rescue mission. The Post and Courier in Charleston reported:

President Donald Trump will campaign for Darline Graham tonight at a mid-week, midterm rally many see as a last-minute effort to push her over the top in her unexpectedly close race against Democrat Annie Andrews.

A year ago, the idea of a Republican president campaigning for a Republican incumbent in one of the state’s most conservative regions would have been unthinkable. Trump won South Carolina by nearly 18 points just two years ago. … But a lot has changed in a year.

The problem for Republicans isn’t just that Trump’s visit would have been “unthinkable”; it’s also that it’s apparently necessary. The party is having to invest several million dollars in the South Carolina race, and a new GOP attack ad against Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, is so hysterical that it reinforces impressions of Republican panic.

This coincides with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifting the race from “likely Republican” to “lean Republican,” the race’s second rating change toward Democrats in as many weeks.

Meanwhile, the same Cook Political Report also moved Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race from “solid Republican” to “likely Republican,” as local prosecutor Scott Colom’s Democratic candidacy starts to make headway against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago that Colom was proving to be such a capable candidate that “top Democratic officials and donors [are] increasingly hopeful that he could pull off the inconceivable.” This week, the party actually opened its wallet. Politico reported:

Senate Majority PAC is putting an initial $1.2 million on television statewide through Election Day to boost Scott Colom, the group announced Tuesday — another plunge into deep-red territory for Democrats as they take advantage of a dismal environment for Republicans. […]

Until now, Democrats said their resources were stretched too thin across a widening map to allow them to play in the Magnolia State. SMP is launching its first ad Wednesday, attacking Hyde-Smith as a “do-nothing” senator, and is planning a digital program as well.

“This really could be the year for a Mississippi miracle,” E.J. Dionne Jr. wrote in his latest New York Times column.

With 13 days remaining in the midterms cycle and the wind apparently at Democrats’ back, the scope of what constitutes a “long shot” is changing in ways that must be making Republican leaders awfully nervous. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post As the midterm map expands, Democrats take a bold look at Senate races in the Deep South appeared first on MS NOW.

When Donald Trump pardoned Julio Herrera Velutini, a Venezuelan-Italian banker, earlier this year, an unavoidable controversy soon followed: It wasn’t long before the public learned that Velutini had not only hired a former member of the president’s legal defense team, but also that the pardon came on the heels of generous campaign contributions Velutini’s daughter made to Trump’s super PAC.

But as damaging as those details were, the latest reporting from The New York Times pushes the controversy to a new level.

The surface-level details were already widely known: Velutini, a billionaire banker, was facing felony bribery and other charges in the United States, but his Trump-aligned defense attorney helped negotiate an unusually lenient plea deal in August 2025. Velutini ultimately pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor campaign finance violation.

But that wasn’t quite enough. Velutini still hoped to wipe the slate clean altogether.

To that end, his lawyer — Christopher Kise, the former Florida solicitor general who was part of Trump’s personal legal defense team — tried to use his position to advocate on behalf of his client, and Velutini’s daughter donated $3.5 million to MAGA Inc., the super PAC the Republican president has said he controls.

But while these details are notable in their own right, the Times’ new reporting, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, adds new details related to Alina Habba Mildon, better known at the time as Alina Habba. From the article:

Then the Herrera family hired Alina Habba, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and at the time was an adviser at the Justice Department. They offered her $10 million a year for four years along with a range of bonuses. In total, including bonuses, she was guaranteed more than $50 million over four years, according to interviews and documents obtained by The New York Times.

Under the agreement, Ms. Habba would become general counsel at Concord Partners, a company that Ms. Herrera set up in late October 2025 in Florida. The company has no public profile and its business remains unclear even to some people associated with the Herrera business empire. Ms. Habba finalized her deal days after the company was registered, while she was still serving as U.S. attorney in New Jersey.

Mildon’s first day at Concord Partners was on Jan. 1, just a few months after the company was created. Weeks later, Trump pardoned Herrera, for reasons the president has never publicly explained or tried to defend.

For her part, Mildon, whose role on Team Trump has long been a point of contention, issued a statement via social media after the Times’ report was published, alleging that the article is part of plot hatched by “left wing media” to “distract” voters during an election season.

Mildon’s lengthy statement added, “Big Scoop: After leaving public service, I’ve gone back to doing what I have done for my entire career: being a lawyer. If the New York Times simply went back and looked at their own reporting, they have already credited another capable attorney for what he successfully did without me and took credit for.  Any insinuation that my employment — all of which has been vetted and disclosed to the D.O.J. — had anything to do with securing a pardon is false and defamatory.”

It’s worth emphasizing, however, that according to the Times’ reporting, Mildon didn’t just begin work in private practice after parting ways with the administration: The article specifically noted that when she began working with Velutini’s daughter, Mildon was a senior adviser to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, and “had an office at the Justice Department and a protective detail from the U.S. Marshals.”

The Times’ report added, “Ms. Herrera and Mr. Herrera did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Neither did their companies. In a statement, the Justice Department said Ms. Habba did not speak to anyone about a pardon.”

Throughout the president’s second term, Trump has faced difficult questions about his scandalous pardons, efforts to secure pardons though lucrative lobbying campaigns, and allegations that pardons might effectively be for sale in this White House.

If the latest reporting is accurate, these questions are not only poised to get louder, they’re likely to be the subject of post-midterms congressional investigations if Democrats are in the majority in either chamber.

The post New reporting escalates controversy surrounding Trump pardon for Venezuelan billionaire appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Russia kills more Ukrainian civilians: “Russia unleashed another missile and drone blitz of civilian areas in Ukraine, killing at least four people, officials said Tuesday, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy scrambled to ensure more American and European help during a visit to Norway.”

* In related news: “U.S. envoys met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Norway on Tuesday, as Kyiv scrambled to respond to an American pressure campaign that has been allied with moves aimed at courting the Kremlin. President Donald Trump’s negotiators, son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff, have so far had little success finding a diplomatic solution to the war.”

* This Wall Street Journal report hasn’t been independently confirmed, but it points to a possible answer to one of the biggest unanswered questions in the world: “Elon Musk ordered the slowdown of a military-grade version of Starlink relied on by Ukraine, a decision that sparked panic in Kyiv and confusion inside the Trump administration, U.S. officials and people familiar with the matter said.”

* The results weren’t at all close: “Residents of Alberta voted overwhelmingly on Monday to remain part of Canada, rejecting a campaign to try to separate the oil-rich western province from the rest of the country and further bolstering Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to advance a united Canada.”

* Conditions in France: “Several French cities extended curfews through Tuesday night after the measures helped quell days of riots and looting, as the government sought to reassure a rattled country ahead of fresh protests expected later in the week. … In an attempt to address some of the cost-of-living concerns, the office of President Emmanuel Macron of France said on Tuesday that he had secured the delivery of an additional 200,000 tons of diesel per month from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain while in the Gulf region.”

* It’s not yet clear what this meeting was about: “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel on Monday, two sources with knowledge told Axios. … The unannounced visit comes eight days before Israel’s election and amid U.S.-Israeli discussions about potentially resuming major combat operations against Iran.”

* On a related note, Donald Trump spoke to the CBS affiliate in Wichita, Kansas, and when asked about the war with Iran, the president said, “Look, we’re going to be winning a war very soon. We could win it tomorrow. Frankly, we could leave today.” He keeps making comments like these — which necessarily raise questions about why he doesn’t want to end the war.

See you tomorrow.

The post Tuesday’s Mini-Report, 10.20.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

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.