This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 19 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

There are now only two weeks until Election Day, and it is pretty clear that all of President Donald Trump’s schemes up to this point have not worked out the way he wanted. The president has run through a laundry list of plots to tilt the election in his party’s favor, and Plans A through D have not gone well.

First, there was the gerrymandering plot, which began well over a year ago, when Trump pressured Republican statehouses to undergo unprecedented midcycle redistricting to draw maps that heavily favored their party.

The folks who actually run elections are being forced to batten down the hatches

But here is the thing about gerrymanders: They’re meant to shore up a party during a strong-to-neutral environment. They are not designed to survive wave elections. And if the polling is correct, this may be a wave election.

In Texas, for example, it looks like Tejano music star Bobby Pulido has a real shot at flipping the newly redrawn 15th Congressional District away from Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz. This was supposed to be the crown jewel of the new Texas map, but Pulido has real star power, which he demonstrated at a huge rally over the weekend, and he has been running a strong campaign.

In fact, Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota conceded earlier this month that his party has already given up hope on winning every redrawn district.

“We’re not gonna win all 13 of those redistricted seats,” he told Axios.

Things have gotten increasingly desperate since that plan backfired. Republicans have boasted a massive funding advantage, thanks to billionaires like Elon Musk pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into races to support the party.

However, over the last few weeks, several polls have shown Republicans now face some much more competitive races in places they least expected. So they are having to spend all over, including in places like deep-red Kansas, Nebraska and even Wyoming. But ad spending can only go so far before voters just tune it out.

The next plan was basically just to try to bribe the voters directly. Remember Trump’s big flop of a midterm convention, where he promised to give every single American adult $5,000 each, but only if Republicans kept Congress? (Republicans, of course, currently control Congress.) But polling showed the idea is incredibly unpopular, and now Trump only half-heartedly brings it up on occasion.

I’m not sure he is convincing anyone, nor am I sure that Trump’s rallies in deep-red states are going to rescue his party — which was the final plan, before he resorted to election interference.

First was his executive order to seize mail-in ballots and use the United States Postal Service to decide whose vote counts and whose does not. Thankfully, that was effectively put on hold by the courts.

So, two weeks out, it is all legal recriminations and voter intimidation.

Last week, the Trump administration raided the home of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. On the one hand, Trump obviously hates to see a Black Muslim woman from Africa in a position of authority. But I think his attempts to denaturalize and deport the congresswoman go further than just racism. He wants to frighten voters. He wants people of color — and especially naturalized citizens who might vote blue — to stay home on Nov. 3.

Trump’s Department of Justice is also suing California over utterly noncredible claims of widespread noncitizen voting, because officials refused to put a shady thumb drive into government computers to “confirm” the citizenship of voters. On Monday, the administration ramped up that bogus fraud investigation. It’s now threatening jail time and doing predawn raids across the state.

Meanwhile, the folks who actually run elections are being forced to batten down the hatches. The Trump administration recently threatened Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, with a DOJ investigation for not going along with its ridiculous claims of noncitizen voting.

But Henderson has shown she will not be intimidated.

“In the past two elections that I oversaw as lieutenant governor, the threats were all external,” she told “60 Minutes” on Sunday. “Non-state actors, cybersecurity threats and other things. But now we also have threats coming from within our own government.”

The threat is coming from the federal government. Principled folks of both parties held the line in 2020, the last time Trump tried to steal an election. Now, they are being put to the test again.

Allison Detzel contributed.

The post Trump turns to intimidation as his midterms plans fall apart appeared first on MS NOW.

A bipartisan group of state attorneys general apparently isn’t buying OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s insistence that “the world should accept some bad things happening” in order to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence technology.

Amid allegations that OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, has helped fuel school shootings and teen suicides, at least eight states are suing the company, accusing it of violating consumer protection laws and putting young users in danger.

The AGs are clearly paying no mind to President Donald Trump’s assertion that AI companies should be allowed to “self-police” as they rapidly develop their AI tools.

As The Guardian reported:

Eight US states sued OpenAI Wednesday, alleging the ChatGPT maker is harming children en masse.

Kansas, Arizona, Montana, Iowa and four others allege the company’s products carried out “willful, dangerous, reckless and unlawful conduct” by coaxing children into harming themselves.

“OpenAI is hurting kids and they are lying to Iowans,” Brenna Bird, the attorney general for Iowa, said in a statement. “OpenAI claims ChatGPT is safe while it’s giving dangerous medical advice, encouraging people to hurt others, and coaching people to commit suicide – all while pretending to be their fake friend.”

The lawsuits, which seek monetary damages and restrictions and court-imposed changes to how OpenAI builds its AI models, were also filed in Arkansas, Idaho, Nebraska and West Virginia. An OpenAI spokesperson told The Guardian that the company has “built industry-leading age-specific protections into our product that many other AI products lack.”

The lawsuits underscore states’ interests in placing guardrails on AI companies as the Trump administration — led by someone who has invested heavily in the AI industry — seeks to prevent states from passing their own regulations. They also come amid widespread public concern about AI tools destroying humanity.

To be clear, such efforts by states have run into roadblocks. For example, Elon Musk recently won a partial victory when his AI company secured a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking a Minnesota law from going into effect that would ban AI tools that generate nonconsensual sexual imagery, including of children.

Nonetheless, the OpenAI lawsuit shows that several states are being rather relentless in pursuing AI regulations — no matter the obstacles.

The post Bipartisan group of states files lawsuits against OpenAI appeared first on MS NOW.

This is the Oct. 20, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Hello, “Morning Joe” family!

We love hearing from you. Here’s what was on your mind this week. As always, you can write to us anytime.

MAILBAG

Joe — it’s so frustrating to see good friends of mine and family be so dismissive of the incompetence and corruption in both Trump administrations. Their rationale is “it’s nothing new and all politicians are corrupt.” As a result they don’t pay attention to the daily goings-on in D.C. Whatever happened to the concept of an informed electorate?

— Kevin H., Wilmington, N.C.

Kevin, I share your frustration. So many friends I have known ignore inconvenient facts while chasing conspiracy theories that make them feel better about supporting Donald Trump.

The facts are not on their side.

When I ask where they get their information, they tell me that they don’t follow the news because media outlets can’t be trusted. But when I push harder, I often learn they are fed a steady stream of lies daily from false posts on Facebook, from websites like Epoch Times run by Chinese religious cults, and from other conspiracy-fueled outlets that have no editors, ethical guidelines, or journalistic standards.

The latest Fox News poll brings welcome news: Corruption is listed by voters as the most important issue in the 2026 election. With costs exploding for groceries, gas, diesel, healthcare, and rent, Americans are paying closer attention to politicians who use their position in government to enrich themselves and their families.

That is bad news for Donald Trump.

Considering Trump’s reckless behavior towards EVERYTHING, if the Democrats manage to flip the House and Senate, what can they do to thaw Trump’s efforts to undermine our democracy, the Ukrainian war, etc.?

— Doug B.

Depending on their margin of victory, Democrats should look for opportunities to work with Republicans to address corruption, the cost of living crisis, and Trump‘s continued support for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

They should start with the most unifying issue: Ukraine.

Republicans and Democrats should pass bipartisan bills regarding Ukraine with veto-proof margins. Such legislation could aggressively support the freedom fighters’ efforts to push back against the Russian invasion.

Many Republican senators are horrified that their president is eagerly working with a former KGB spy to undermine Western democracy. If Democrats win big next month, expect GOP lawmakers to line up in support of Ukrainian funding measures that could have a powerful impact on the war’s outcome.

Republicans and Democrats can also drive down prices by retaking control of their tariff authority and Congress’s power to declare war.

For two years, Republican majorities have shamefully abdicated those duties to Donald Trump, who has started wars and levied tariffs on countries for the most reckless of reasons. Those wars and tariffs end up working as taxes on middle-class Americans and others who can’t afford higher costs at the grocery store or gas pump.

I would also expect Republicans to work with Democratic majorities on anti-corruption measures aimed at stopping the Trump family from continuing to cash in on public service. Right now, corruption is an issue that unites members of both parties who have been horrified or ashamed by the practices of the president and his family over the past 20 months.

Also expect much activity from the oversight committees in both the House and Senate, as they work to uncover any pay-to-play schemes hatched from the start of Trump’s second administration.

Trump has been talking to Putin a lot lately and giving him relief from sanctions and buying diesel fuel from Russia. With only two weeks for the election, what do you think about the possibility that Trump is having Putin disrupt the midterm elections in return for favors?

— Pat M., Pittsburgh

Despite the lies spread by Donald Trump and his supporters, Vladimir Putin worked aggressively to influence American elections in 2016, 2020, and 2024. I have no doubt that he is using his state authority to spread disinformation across the United States today and every day up until the 2026 election.

Putin’s war on democracy has not just been fought on the front lines in Ukraine. It has also been waged through cyberwarfare and misinformation to twist policy debates and shape political outcomes across Europe and the Americas. Unfortunately, these efforts have worked all too well, as a confederacy of dunces has willingly lined up to play useful idiots for Russia.

Here’s hoping that all of that will be exposed by Democrats if they can take control of Congress.

Joe, leaders fall into two categories: those who appeal to our basest instincts and those who inspire us to become better versions of ourselves. Who has inspired you to become better than you would have been without their influence?

— Gary B., Greensboro, N.C.

Thank you so much for your great question, Gary.

Yesterday, “Morning Joe” ran a package on the life and times of Ethel Kennedy as told by her daughter Kerry. Watching her story and those images flash across the screen reminded me how much Bobby Kennedy influenced my decision to get into politics.

After reading Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s biography of the senator, I found myself inspired by a man who dared to make a difference — even if his worldview was different than mine.

I was most moved by what Bobby Kennedy did the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Kennedy was campaigning for the presidency in Indianapolis that day, but wanted to take a detour into the inner city to tell Black voters the terrible news.

The Indianapolis Police Department urged him to stay away, fearing there would be riots and bloodshed downtown. Kennedy persisted, and later that evening, a police escort guided him and his driver to the edge of the neighborhood before stopping and turning around.

Kennedy’s car made its way to his destination, and he got out to address his audience:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’m only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some very sad news for all of you and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed by a white man.

But we have to make an effort to go beyond these difficult times.

My favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:

Even in our sleep,

pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,

until in our own despair,

against our will,

comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.

So I ask you tonight to return home to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King, but more importantly, to say a prayer for our own country.

We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times.

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.

And let’s dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.

Thank you very much.

Remembering that night in a 2007 essay for Washington Monthly, Evan Thomas wrote, “As news of King’s death spread through poor neighborhoods across the country, riots broke out in 110 cities, killing 39 people and injuring 2,500. But in the city of Indianapolis, where Kennedy had spoken, it was quiet.”

The post “If Democrats win, they should focus on the most unifying issue: Ukraine”: Joe Scarborough answers reader questions appeared first on MS NOW.

Tobacco smoking may reduce the chances of having a baby. Its effects can begin before pregnancy and continue during pregnancy and after birth. The World Health Organisation highlighted these concerns in its knowledge summary, Tobacco and infertility, published on 8 September 2026.

WHO estimates that about one in six people of reproductive age experience infertility during their lifetime. Infertility means that pregnancy has not occurred after 12 months or more of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse. It can arise from problems in either partner, or from causes that remain unexplained.

Smoking and the chances of conception

Women who smoke may take longer to conceive. Smoking is associated with reduced fertility, earlier loss of ovarian function, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, where the pregnancy develops outside the uterus. These findings come mainly from observational studies. The size of the risk differs between studies, and smoking is only one of several factors that may affect fertility.

Smoking may also affect the results of fertility treatment, including in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Studies have reported fewer pregnancies and live births among women who smoke. However, the findings are not uniform. A recent review found that the apparent reduction became less certain when the comparison was limited to women who had never smoked. It would therefore be misleading to tell every patient that smoking cuts her chance of successful treatment in half.

This advice should also apply to men. Smoking has been associated with poorer sperm concentration, movement and shape, and can contribute to erectile dysfunction. Poorer semen quality does not mean that every man who smokes is infertile. Its effect on the actual chance of fathering a child is less certain than the evidence of damage to semen quality.

During pregnancy

Pregnant and breastfeeding women should avoid all tobacco and nicotine products. This includes cigarettes, shisha, smokeless tobacco, heated tobacco, nicotine vapes and nicotine pouches, as well as nicotine patches, gum and lozenges. The aim is complete cessation of tobacco and nicotine. The absence of smoke does not remove the risks of nicotine exposure.

Smoking during pregnancy increases the risks of poor fetal growth, low birth weight, premature birth, placental complications and stillbirth. Nicotine can harm the developing brain and lungs. Quitting before pregnancy is best, but stopping at any stage of pregnancy can still benefit the mother and baby.

Breastfeeding and help with quitting

Nicotine and other harmful chemicals can pass to a baby through breast milk. Smoking can also reduce the mother’s milk supply. Exposure to second-hand smoke increases an infant’s risk of sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory illness and ear infections. Keep the home and car smoke-free, and family members should not smoke around the mother or baby.

A mother who is struggling to quit should receive help without blame. She should not stop breastfeeding simply because she smokes or vapes. CDC and NHS guidance advises continuing breastfeeding while working towards cessation, because breastfeeding still provides important benefits.

During pregnancy, the goal should be complete cessation of nicotine use, including nicotine replacement products. Help with quitting should focus on counselling, regular follow-up and practical support for managing cravings. A doctor or midwife can help a woman make a quit plan and provide individual care when stopping is difficult. Family members should support her efforts and keep the home free from tobacco smoke.

The role of less harmful alternatives

The discussion of less harmful alternatives applies to adult smokers who would otherwise continue smoking and who are neither pregnant nor breastfeeding. Much of the harm from cigarettes comes from burning tobacco and inhaling the resulting smoke. Nicotine causes dependence and has health effects of its own, but it is not the only harmful substance in a cigarette.

Completely replacing cigarettes with a regulated non-combustible alternative may reduce exposure to harmful substances. For example, a study comparing tobacco-use groups found lower levels of many toxicant biomarkers in people who used only e-cigarettes than in cigarette smokers. Exposure was not eliminated. This supports the potential to reduce harm from continued smoking, but does not establish the size of any reduction in long-term disease risk.

The Cochrane review of smoking-cessation studies also found that nicotine e-cigarettes helped more people stop smoking than nicotine replacement therapy in the trials reviewed. This is evidence about quitting cigarettes. It is not proof that vaping improves fertility or that it is harmless during pregnancy or breastfeeding.¹¹

Evidence for one product should not be applied to all nicotine products. Reproductive risks from newer alternatives remain incompletely understood. Continuing to smoke while using another product is not the goal; complete displacement of cigarettes is needed. Adults should receive cessation support, with eventual nicotine cessation where possible. Do not promote these products to young people or non-smokers, and ensure adult access through age checks, product standards, and marketing controls.

In Pakistan, doctors should ask both partners about tobacco and nicotine use during fertility consultations, antenatal visits and postnatal care. Advice should include second-hand smoke and practical help to quit. Couples need to understand the risks, but they also need support. Stopping tobacco use should be part of preparing for a baby, and that support should continue after the baby is born.

The post Tobacco smoking may affect your chances of having a baby appeared first on Daily Pakistan English News.

JD Vance's comments follow Donald Trump's backing of Israeli prime minister ahead of October 27 elections.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has rejected calls to reconsider his government’s direction after a crushing Senate election defeat, as the opposition strengthens its position and fresh disputes over Russia, European funding and domestic reforms add to his difficulties.

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš has ruled out changing his government’s policies despite a humiliating defeat in the Senate elections, in which his ANO movement failed to win a single seat. The result has strengthened the parliamentary opposition and intensified questions over the political direction of his coalition, less than a year after it took office.

Speaking after a cabinet meeting on Monday, 19 October, Babiš insisted that the election results would have no effect on the functioning of his government or its alliance with the far-right Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) party and the Motorists movement. His administration would continue implementing its programme, including controversial changes to public broadcasting and proposed legislation regulating the financing of non-governmental organisations.

The prime minister’s refusal to reconsider his government’s agenda has drawn criticism from Senate president Miloš Vystrčil, who accused Babiš of transferring responsibility for the defeat to regional party organisations rather than accepting personal accountability.

A defeat with consequences beyond the Senate

The elections, held on 9–10 and 16–17 October, concerned 27 of the Senate’s 81 seats. ANO entered 13 candidates in the second-round contests, but every one of them lost. The party’s representation consequently fell to 14 senators.

Babiš called the outcome “catastrophic”, acknowledging a result that was particularly damaging given ANO’s success in the 2024 Senate elections and its subsequent victory in the October 2025 parliamentary contest.

The opposition Mayors and Independents movement (STAN) emerged as the strongest performer, with ten successful candidates or endorsed contenders. The centre-right Civic Democratic Party (ODS) secured seven seats, maintaining its position at the head of the Senate’s largest parliamentary group alongside TOP 09.

In an interview published on 20 October, Vystrčil said the results demonstrated that Babiš’s personal electoral appeal did not translate into successful Senate campaigns. He also criticised the prime minister’s response to the defeat, describing his attempts to blame regional organisations as an evasion of leadership responsibility.

The vote followed municipal elections in which ANO lost ground in several important urban centres, while SPD also suffered substantial losses.

Opposition leadership becomes the next political contest

STAN leader Vít Rakušan has interpreted the result as evidence that his movement can become ANO’s principal national challenger.

The party’s Senate performance followed a strong showing in municipal elections, including victory in Prague, where its leading candidate Petr Hlaváček is seeking to form the next city administration.

The movement’s growing appeal is supported by recent opinion polling. A Median electoral model published on 17 October, based on September interviews, placed ANO at 29.5 per cent, STAN at 17 per cent and ODS at 12.5 per cent.

Yet STAN’s ambitions face competition from within the opposition. ODS retains substantial institutional influence through the Senate, while the Christian Democrats’ new leader, Jan Grolich, is increasingly discussed as another possible contender for national opposition leadership.

The opposition’s unity is also less straightforward at municipal level. In Ostrava, ANO has negotiated a local governing agreement with Starostové pro Ostravu and the Ostravak movement, illustrating the flexibility of local political alliances.

Russia policy brings fresh controversy

The electoral setback coincides with renewed controversy over the Czech government’s approach to Russia.

On 19 October, Foreign Minister Petr Macinka, leader of the Motorists, defended his decision not to support a Finnish initiative calling for tighter European Union restrictions on entry visas for Russian citizens.

The proposal, promoted by Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen, sought stronger EU-wide restrictions on non-essential travel by Russian nationals, including tourists, against a background of growing concerns over Russian sabotage and hybrid operations.

According to details of the diplomatic disagreement, senior Czech foreign ministry officials had recommended supporting the initiative.

Macinka argued that Prague already maintained extensive national restrictions and had previously endorsed a comparable Estonian proposal. He questioned the effectiveness of the Finnish initiative, which attracted limited support from other EU governments.

The disagreement comes as Czech security policy remains under scrutiny. On Tuesday, 20 October, the National Security Council discussed the country’s security outlook, military development plans and changes to NATO’s air and missile defence implementation arrangements.

The issue exposes a continuing area of contention between Babiš’s coalition and opposition parties favouring closer coordination with Ukraine’s European supporters.

Brussels presents another challenge

Meanwhile, Babiš faces unresolved questions concerning his former business conglomerate Agrofert and access to European Union funding.

The European Commission has maintained restrictions on certain EU reimbursements after concluding that the trust arrangement involving Babiš’s business interests does not sufficiently address the potential conflict of interest.

The measures affect particular cohesion-fund expenditure and rural development reimbursements, rather than all EU agricultural payments. Babiš has maintained that the arrangements governing his business interests comply with the law.

The dispute carries particular significance as Prague participates in negotiations over the EU’s next long-term budget, covering 2028–2034.

At the European Council summit on 15–16 October, Babiš argued for protecting national allocations of EU funds, revisiting aspects of the emissions trading system and addressing high industrial energy costs. These negotiations will continue while the Commission’s concerns about his business arrangements remain unresolved.

Government retains power despite opposition gains

The Senate defeat does not threaten Babiš’s parliamentary majority. The lower chamber can override most Senate objections to ordinary legislation, and the governing parties continue to command sufficient support to pursue their programme.

The September Median model projected that ANO, SPD and the Motorists would retain 107 seats in the 200-member Chamber of Deputies, only slightly below their current combined strength.

Nevertheless, the elections have given the opposition a stronger platform for challenging the government over public broadcasting, European relations, defence policy and constitutional legislation, where the Senate possesses more substantial powers.

The immediate political contest is therefore not over the survival of Babiš’s government, but over whether STAN can convert its regional and Senate successes into a credible national alternative before the next parliamentary elections. For Babiš, whose party remains the largest in the country, the more pressing difficulty is its inability to defeat opposition candidates when elections are decided beyond ANO’s established electoral base.

Israel withholds shelter from Gazans ■ US ignores American citizens attacked in West Bank ■ Another Palestinian dies in prison ■ More.

This is an adapted excerpt from the Oct. 18 episode of “Connect with Jacob Soboroff.”

According to a new Fox News poll, government corruption has now edged out inflation as voters’ top concern: 60% say they’re “extremely concerned” about the issue, compared with 58% who say the same about inflation.

America’s worry about government corruption shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s been following this administration. And millions of Americans are still struggling to pay for the basics while the scandals keep raining down at our collective expense. At this rate, it feels like we’re seeing a new scandal or two every week.

Case in point: Last week federal agents carried out a raid of Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home at 6 a.m., taking with them boxes marked “Seized Property Evidence.” They also took her phone and passport.

You don’t need an actual conviction; you just need the performance: the raid, the headlines, the harassment of anyone who speaks out.

The search warrant listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings, and conspiracy; but it didn’t identify any alleged crimes that appear to relate to Omar’s financial disclosures. Three people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that the investigation centers around claims that Omar or her late father may have lied on decades-old immigration paperwork to secure legal status. Omar became a naturalized citizen in 2000, when she was 17 — nearly three decades ago.

According to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the probe who spoke to The Wall Street Journal, the goal is to build a case to revoke the congresswoman’s citizenship and eventually deport her.

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has tried to make her citizenship an issue. The Post reports that in 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, immigration officials examined many of these same questions, including Omar’s birth date and her father’s military record in Somalia. At the time, officials found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a full investigation.

The Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration also looked into a similar tip but did not move forward because it lacked evidence.

Former immigration officials say it’s highly unusual for an investigation like this to involve a search warrant, particularly when the government already has the immigration records.

So why raid her home? Like so much else with this administration, the spectacle and the intimidation appear to be the point. Not to mention the fact that we are about three weeks out from an election, and Omar is on the ballot.

On Friday, Omar’s lawyers blasted the raid in a letter to prosecutors, writing, “This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers.” They say the search deviated from the specific procedures mandated by the judge who approved the warrant and violated specific restrictions meant to protect Omar’s legislative work.

According to her attorneys, agents were required to give them a copy of the warrant and to contact the House of Representatives’ own lawyers before conducting the search. They say agents did neither. The letter also states that Omar was prevented from contacting her lawyers for more than an hour after the search began.

A Justice Department spokesperson disputed the lawyers’ claim and said the letter was “riddled with false allegations and inaccuracies.”

In a statement on X, Omar said she would “not be silenced.” Adding, “This is just the latest escalation in [Trump’s] campaign of political intimidation.”

This is the authoritarian playbook at work. You don’t need an actual conviction; you just need the performance of the raid, the headlines, the harassment of anyone who speaks out. The investigations and the headlines become a substitute for due process. The spectacle itself sends a message: guilty until proven innocent.

If they can do this to Omar, the administration can do it to anyone. Omar is a sitting member of Congress. She has lawyers, a national platform and constitutional protections for her legislative work. If a sitting lawmaker can have her passport seized over paperwork dating back to her teenage years, what chance does a naturalized nurse in Minneapolis have? Or a cab driver in Chicago?

As The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg wrote, Trump’s government “is tacitly declaring the citizenship of all foreign-born people provisional.”

And Omar may not be the last; Tennessee Republican Rep. Andy Ogles has already asked the Justice Department to review the naturalization documents of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Look at the calendar. The raid on Omar’s home comes just over three weeks before the midterms. Historically, the Justice Department has treated searches involving political candidates and their associates as precisely the kind of step to avoid in the 60 days before an election. Omar’s lawyers say this search violated that policy. The department claims prosecutors cleared it through an internal review.

On the same day as the raid on Omar’s home, Trump mentioned her name at a rally in Ohio while his supporters chanted “deport.” Earlier that day, he claimed he had “nothing to do” with the search.

On the one hand, voters told Fox News their biggest concern is government corruption. On the other, this is an administration that wants you to worry about decades-old paperwork about a teenager’s age.

It appears the Trump White House response to growing concerns about corruption is to engage in more of it.

Allison Detzel contributed.

The post Trump’s raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home puts his authoritarian intimidation on display appeared first on MS NOW.

Iranian authorities defiant despite financial strain, saying they want to lift US blockade and pressure on their terms.

Baku - "The European Parliament consists of these Islamophobes, and this must always remain in focus," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said on 15 September, accusing the West of waging an "undeclared war" against Islam.

Yet just days later, the Azerbaijani government stepped up its enforcement of restrictions on Islamic headscarves in schools, triggering social media campaigns and protests both inside the country and abroad.

This is not the first time Azerbaijan has attempted to ban the hijab in schools. WikiLeaks cables revealed that, as early as 2007, Ramiz Mehdiyev, then head of the Presidential Administration, had expressed concern over the growing number of women wearing headscarves.

He reportedly outlined the government’s intention to introduce school uniforms prohibiting the hijab as a preventive measure, warning that the trend would otherwise become impossible to stop.

In November 2010, the Education Ministry’s decision to prohibit the hijab in schools sparked mass protests in Baku, Ganja, and other cities. As a result, in the years that followed, restrictions were enforced inconsistently, leaving the issue in a legal and administrative grey zone.

The 21 September measure, however, signals a renewed determination to enforce the ban. Although it does not explicitly prohibit the hijab, the authorities rely on school uniform regulations and the principle of secular education to justify restrictions on religious headwear.

Unlike in 2010, the latest enforcement also affects teachers. Videos showing distressed students in tears and parents protesting outside schools have circulated on social media.

Hundreds of people have reportedly been detained amid the wider crackdown.

There have also been reports of women in other public-sector workplaces being pressured to remove their headscarves, suggesting that the issue may extend beyond the education system.

Azerbaijan’s religious landscape is already subject to extensive state control. Since the early 2000s, the country’s religious policy has shifted towards increasingly restrictive regulation.

Successive legislative amendments have narrowed the space for religious freedom, including through restrictions on public religious gatherings and foreign-trained religious preachers, mosque closures, and state control over the appointment of mosque imams.

The Shia Muslim community, which constitutes the majority of the country’s Muslim population, has faced particular scrutiny. A list of 322 political prisoners published by Azerbaijani rights monitors on 5 October included 178 religious believers, making them the largest category on the list.

By presenting the hijab as a “Persian-Arab value” alien to Azerbaijani national identity, the authorities portray restrictions on religious expression as a defence of national identity and sovereignty.

Pro-government media and commentators have framed the controversy as a national security issue, linking visible Islamic dress to alleged Iranian influence and associating the protests with Tehran.

Importantly, this framing also reinforces Baku’s preferred international image as a secular state and a reliable partner for Western governments.

The rift with Turkey

The controversy opened an unusual fault line between Azerbaijan and Turkey. Turkish social media had already been awash with criticism over Baku’s decision to keep its representative in the UN General Assembly hall during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in September.

The Turkish delegation joined representatives of numerous other countries in walking out during the address, amid widespread condemnation of genocide in Gaza.

Azerbaijan’s subsequent hijab restrictions further intensified this criticism, bringing renewed attention to the tension between Baku’s invocation of Muslim solidarity, its domestic religious policies, and its relationship with Israel.

Protestors staged demonstrations outside Azerbaijan’s embassy and consulate in Turkey.

In an address to a convention of his ruling New Azerbaijan Party (NAP) in Baku on 2 October, Aliyev criticised unnamed actors for interfering in Azerbaijan's domestic affairs.

“Everyone should know their place; they should not interfere in our affairs, stick their noses into our way of life, or tell us what to do. Everyone should mind their own nation and state,” he said.

Although Aliyev did not explicitly name Turkey, his remarks were widely interpreted as a rebuke to Turkish critics. This was particularly notable because, at the time, no Turkish government official had publicly commented on the headscarf restrictions in Azerbaijan.

That changed when Oktay Saral, a chief adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, described the exclusion of hijab-wearing students from schools as “unacceptable” and expressed hope that Azerbaijan would “correct this mistake” soon.

Leyla Şahin Usta, deputy parliamentary group chair of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), also criticised the restrictions. Sharing a video of the controversy on X, she wrote: “We hope Azerbaijan will reverse this mistake as soon as possible. These distressing images are unbecoming of the modern world.”

The issue is particularly sensitive for the AKP, whose rise was partly shaped by opposition to restrictions on Islamic dress following Turkey’s 28 February 1997 military-led intervention, known as the “postmodern coup."

Yet the criticism was not confined to the ruling party. Politicians from across Turkey’s political spectrum also spoke out against the restrictions, suggesting that the controversy had become a broader public issue rather than an exclusively partisan dispute.

Baku, nonetheless, views the criticism from Turkey as a campaign backed by Ankara.

After Saral’s X post, in a statement, the NAP accused Ankara of fomenting “artificial tensions” between the two countries. It also alleged that Turkish media outlets close to the AKP government were publishing reports about Baku that were “contrary to the facts” and warned that the controversy could damage bilateral relations.

The statement went further, rejecting what it called attempts to distort Azerbaijan’s relations with Israel and the accusations directed at Baku over those ties. It defended the relationship as one based on international law and mutual interests.

The response suggests that Baku views the controversy not simply as criticism of its domestic religious policies but also as a challenge to its right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

What's next?

Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric, a major deterioration in Azerbaijani-Turkish relations remains unlikely.

The two countries maintain deep strategic, military, and economic ties, giving both governments strong incentives to contain disagreements rather than allow them to escalate.

Although Turkish officials did not directly escalate the dispute with public counter-accusations, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan addressed the tensions during his 15 October visit to Baku. He emphasised the countries’ shared history and their ability to manage differences without undermining their strategic relationship.

“There is no need for these issues to be turned into a propaganda tool through social media,” he said.

Yet the recurring controversies expose tensions beneath the familiar rhetoric of the “one nation, two states” alliance. This is particularly significant as tensions between Turkey and Israel continue to grow.

From Israel’s perspective, such disputes create a potential strategic advantage, as they expose the limits of Azerbaijani-Turkish solidarity. Baku’s decision to bring Israeli President Isaac Herzog to the CICA summit aboard a scheduled Azerbaijan Airlines passenger flight is particularly telling.

The aircraft crossed Turkish airspace despite Ankara’s restrictions on Israeli government aircraft.

The arrangement underscored the contrast between Turkey’s efforts to isolate Israel and Azerbaijan’s continued willingness to facilitate high-level Israeli engagement.

It may reinforce suspicions in Turkey that Baku’s strategic partnership with Israel places limits on the solidarity Ankara can expect from its closest regional ally.

Rovshan Mammadli is a Baku-based journalist and independent analyst. Holding a BA in Israel and Middle East Studies and an MA in International Policy Studies, he focuses on Azerbaijan’s foreign policy, Middle East politics, and peace and security in the South Caucasus. 

Follow him on X: @MammadliRovshan

Edited by Charlie Hoyle

Zelenskyy’s urgent discussion with the US Secretary of State suggests that Washington cannot pursue accommodation with Moscow without confronting opposition in Congress, the requirements of American national security and Ukraine’s continuing dependence on US military support.

The telephone conversation between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday, 20 October, has exposed an increasingly uncomfortable contradiction in American policy towards Russia. While President Donald Trump is easing economic pressure on Moscow and attempting to restrain Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, senior members of his administration are having to address the consequences for Ukraine’s defence.

Zelenskyy raised three immediate concerns: the availability of Patriot interceptor missiles, interruptions to American early-warning intelligence concerning Russian ballistic attacks, and restrictions affecting Starlink and Starshield satellite communications. He described the discussion as constructive, expressing appreciation for Rubio’s willingness to help.

The significance lies less in the diplomatic language than in the circumstances surrounding the call. Washington is attempting to obtain concessions from Moscow while several of its own decisions have weakened confidence in the security arrangements on which Kyiv depends. Rubio’s involvement suggests that these difficulties cannot simply be left unresolved while Trump’s envoys pursue another round of negotiations.

The political cost of concessions to Moscow

Trump’s recent decisions concerning Russian energy exports have brought an existing disagreement over Ukraine into American domestic politics.

The administration has facilitated Russian diesel exports and waived new sanctions under the Graham Act, legislation intended to increase pressure on Russia and its principal energy customers. Rubio has said the president will use a 60-day period to assess the economic consequences of implementing the measures.

For Trump, the immediate attraction is apparent. Rising fuel prices have become a political liability ahead of the 3 November congressional midterm elections. Increasing supplies on international markets offers the administration a potential means of relieving pressure on American consumers.

The difficulty is that concessions to Vladimir Putin carry their own electoral consequences. Moscow remains deeply unpopular among substantial sections of the American political establishment, including Republicans who regard support for Ukraine as a matter of American strategic interest.

That opposition is no longer confined to public criticism. Republican senators have joined Democrats in challenging decisions affecting Ukraine’s military capabilities, creating an additional problem for an administration already facing a difficult electoral environment.

Trump can justify Russian energy concessions as an attempt to protect American consumers. Explaining why Ukraine should simultaneously experience interruptions to critical defence systems is considerably more difficult.

Rubio and the machinery of American foreign policy

Rubio’s position within the administration is particularly important. As both Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he occupies two offices central to the formulation and execution of American foreign policy.

His conversation with Zelenskyy took place during a diplomatic tour of Uzbekistan and India, demonstrating that the deterioration in relations with Kyiv required attention even while the administration was pursuing other international priorities.

It would be premature to interpret Rubio’s intervention as evidence of an independent foreign policy. There is no indication that he is acting against Trump’s instructions. The more plausible interpretation is that the administration recognises a need to contain the consequences of its recent decisions without requiring the president publicly to reverse his position.

The controversy surrounding Starshield is particularly revealing. Reuters reported that instructions to restrict the satellite service used by Ukrainian forces originated inside the White House. The officials cited did not identify who authorised the order, while the administration has denied Trump’s personal involvement.

Separately, Zelenskyy has reported failures to receive advance warnings of Russian ballistic attacks. The cause of those interruptions remains disputed.

These developments have already attracted congressional scrutiny. Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen led a bipartisan request for an investigation, warning that failures in communications and intelligence-sharing may have endangered American personnel in Ukraine.

Congress cannot directly manage the administration’s foreign policy. Nevertheless, its powers over expenditure, legislation and oversight make sustained opposition politically consequential, particularly when members of the president’s own party are involved.

Ukraine needs military assistance, not diplomatic promises

The immediate requirements in Kyiv are considerably more specific than the objectives being discussed in Washington’s diplomatic negotiations.

Ukraine needs reliable satellite communications, uninterrupted intelligence concerning incoming missiles and sufficient Patriot interceptors to defend its cities and critical infrastructure. Delays in any of these areas have consequences that cannot be addressed through declarations about a future peace settlement.

The shortage of Patriot missiles is particularly serious. Zelenskyy has complained that American authorisation is delaying deliveries under arrangements financed by European governments. Washington’s commitments elsewhere, including the Middle East, add further pressure to American air-defence inventories.

Meanwhile, preparations for new negotiations in Oslo involving American envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner continue. The involvement of European leaders may broaden the diplomatic discussion, but it does not resolve the central obstacle: Putin has offered no convincing indication that he is prepared to end the invasion on terms acceptable to Ukraine.

Proposals concerning Ukrainian elections, NATO membership or alternative negotiating arrangements remain subordinate to that problem. Without a ceasefire that can be enforced, even an agreement on the political framework for peace would leave fundamental questions of security unanswered.

The limits of presidential power

Trump retains substantial authority over American sanctions, military assistance and diplomatic engagement. Yet his ability to offer Moscow meaningful concessions is constrained by several factors beyond his immediate control.

Congress can challenge further attempts to weaken sanctions or restrict assistance. European governments maintain their own sanctions regimes and are not obliged to follow Washington’s approach. Ukraine retains considerable military capacity, including the ability to attack Russian energy facilities that contribute to financing the war.

Nor can the American president compel Putin to accept a settlement. If Russia calculates that continuing military operations offers greater advantages than negotiations, additional concessions from Washington may encourage Moscow to prolong the conflict rather than end it.

Rubio’s conversation with Zelenskyy therefore suggests that the administration is being forced to confront the practical consequences of its policy. An American president may seek improved relations with Moscow, but the institutional interests of the United States do not necessarily change with his personal diplomatic priorities.

For Kyiv, the question is whether those interests will translate into the continued supply of weapons, intelligence and communications support. Russia’s attacks will continue irrespective of the timetable established for American diplomatic initiatives.

You can find the origins of the MAGA movement, now hurtling toward its rendezvous with the midterm electorate, in many places.  The most obvious, straight-line antecedent is, of course, the Tea Party revolt of 2009 and 2010. The bipartisan backlash against the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit fused with the conservative outrage at ObamaCare…

A battle over a Washington golf course has turned into a fiery showdown over the powers of the Trump administration to do as it wishes and the power of the courts to constrain it. At issue is East Potomac Golf Links, an unglamorous but busy municipal course roughly 2 miles from the White House. President…

You can find the origins of the MAGA movement, now hurtling toward its rendezvous with the midterm electorate, in many places.  The most obvious, straight-line antecedent is, of course, the Tea Party revolt of 2009 and 2010. The bipartisan backlash against the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit fused with the conservative outrage at ObamaCare…

A battle over a Washington golf course has turned into a fiery showdown over the powers of the Trump administration to do as it wishes and the power of the courts to constrain it. At issue is East Potomac Golf Links, an unglamorous but busy municipal course roughly 2 miles from the White House. President…

HSBC’s ‘sharia-compliant’ fund invested over $100 million in companies linked to Israel’s military.