Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation that would create the first-ever Truth and Accountability Commission to investigate what he calls abuses of power by the Trump administration. The bill, first shared with The Hill, notes the commission would examine several issues, including the administration’s decision to launch a war in Iran without congressional authorization.…
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is introducing legislation that would create the first-ever Truth and Accountability Commission to investigate what he calls abuses of power by the Trump administration. The bill, first shared with The Hill, notes the commission would examine several issues, including the administration’s decision to launch a war in Iran without congressional authorization.…
President Trump heads to Iowa Thursday looking to energize his base while touting a financial support plan to reassure farmers, a key constituency who have been hit hard by rising prices.
It’s another campaign stop to a reliably red state that’s become surprisingly competitive. Trump won Iowa three times – carrying it by 13 points in 2024 – but this year several Republicans are in tight races.
Returning to Iowa for the first time in nearly 10 months, Trump will campaign, in part, for GOP Senate hopeful Rep. Ashley Hinson who is running to fill retiring Republican Sen. Joni Ernst’s seat in November. Hinson and her Democratic rival, state Rep. Josh Turek, are almost neck and neck in polling averages from MS NOW/ FiftyPlusOne.
“There are a number of Senate seats in play that we did not expect to be in play,” said Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican pollster. “[Trump’s] record and his approach are likely to appeal much more to members of his base than they are to independent or swing voters.”
Thursday’s rally at the Sioux Gateway Airport is the first of at least two planned visits to Iowa by the president in the final stretch of the midterms. The president’s campaign blitz to typically Republican strongholds reflects how the political landscape has shifted in a midterm that initially favored Republicans.
“The problem right now is that people perceive that the economy is not better, and inflation has not only not come down, but it’s higher,” said Ayres.
A GOP strategist familiar with Republicans’ thinking in the midterms, granted anonymity to speak freely about internal strategies, told MS NOW the president’s visits to some of the reddest districts in states like Iowa in the final days of the campaign is a part of deliberate strategy to maximize turnout by loyal Trump voters in key races.
“Specifically, the fourth district where we’re deploying him is the heart of the base, the heart of Republican support,” the strategist said. “If we can churn out our base voters in that area, Democrats’ path to winning the state just shrinks dramatically.”
Seeking to address the financial hardships hitting major agricultural states like Iowa the Trump administration has announced a $8 billion relief package for farmers and construction plans for a $15 billion steel plant in the state. The president himself has also touted new foreign trade deals to export American farm products and other efforts to boost farmers and ranchers.
But some farmers MS NOW spoke to say Trump’s trade deals have made little impact on their businesses while their operating costs have increased from rising diesel and fertilizer prices. And the president’s announcement to lower tariffs on ground beef from Argentina earlier this year came as a blow to the state’s cattle industry, with both Hinson and Turek calling the policy a bad idea.
Craig Moss, a fifth generation cattle and hog farmer from Hull, about 50 miles north of Sioux City, told MS NOW that the volatile cattle market has been “rough” in the past year in part because of the president’s announcement to lift tariffs on ground beef imported from Argentina.
“Trump makes a trade deal with Argentina, and then when he’s questioned about it by reporters, he says, ‘You don’t know anything about what’s going on over there,’” Moss said. “Well, sir, you don’t know anything about the cattle market.”
Moss said the current diesel price “kind of stinks,” saying the ongoing Iran war is to blame. Still, Moss, who voted for Trump in the past, said he agrees with the president on most issues and does not regret voting for him in the past.
Julius Schaaf, a corn and soybean farmer of more than 40 years based in Fremont County, Iowa, who voted against Trump in past elections says the current volatility in the farming industry is due to Trump’s trade policies. Schaaf criticized the administration as a “rude and difficult” trading partner.
“A lot of the people that supported him were farmers that have a lot of equity in their property and they can weather a storm for a while,” Schaaf said. “But you talk to the young guys that are just getting started and trying to buy inputs and inputs have gone through the roof – they’re the ones that are really struggling.”
Vice President Vance addressed some of those concerns last month in a rally in the state, telling supporters the Trump administration’s trade and tax policies have directly benefited farmers and blue-collar workers. He’s also sought to show understanding for the economic realities, acknowledging the high cost of gas, telling voters “we’re working on it.” Trump for his part has at times downplayed those concerns, calling the focus on affordability a “hoax,” insisting prices will plummet once the Iran war ends.
Many Iowans MS NOW spoke with from across the political spectrum agreed that their number one concern is the cost of living. And while Trump’s performance got mixed reviews they were also undecided in how they planned to vote in the Senate and House races.
Tiffany, an Iowa voter who backed Trump in 2024, plans to vote in the midterm races but says she’s currently undecided. Her top issue: the cost of living, she said, because “prices keep going up.”
“If you can’t afford to put gas in your car, how can you go to work to make money to put a roof over your head to put food on your table,” said Tiffany, who asked to only go by her first name. “You can only stretch your penny and your dollars so far until you can’t stretch it anymore.”
A la medianoche del 15 de octubre de 2026, mientras los reyes Felipe y Letizia le entregaban un trofeo en forma de globo terráqueo y un cheque de un millón de euros ante 4.000 invitados puestos en pie aplaudiéndola durante 10 minutos, los editores de Penguin Random House se enteraban de que Isabel Allende, la reina madre de su catálogo, les dejaba por otra. Por Planeta, concretamente, el gigante de la competencia, a cuyo celebérrimo premio se había presentado Allende anónimamente sin decirles ni media, junto a otros 1.423 escritores, y que, gracias al prodigioso olfato del jurado, había ganado de calle. Acababa así, por las bravas, una relación profesional, y personal, de 44 años que comenzó con la publicación, en 1982, del superventas mundial La casa de los espíritus y siguióconotras 30 obras siempre rentables para todos. Hasta aquí, una de tantas historias de cuernos profesionales, y personales, en los que el cornudo es el último en enterarse. Pero, más allá de guerras editoriales y cálculos de mercado, me interesan las razones íntimas por las que Allende, una mujer de 84 años con la vida resuelta y los suculentos dividendos de sus libros engordándole las arcas cada fin de año, da semejante campanazo. Se me dirá que por dinero, claro, que nunca es suficiente. Por el millón del premio, multiplicado por tres o cuatro, más los derechos del siguiente libro, más equis prebendas, porque cuando se ficha a una grande, se suele fichar el lote, como cuando la muy fina revista ¡Hola!contratadesde la pedida de mano, la boda, la luna de miel, el embarazo, el bautizo y hasta el divorcio de una pareja de famosos, que ahora se divorcian hasta en las mejores familias. Poderosas razones que, sospecho, no explican del todo el volantazo de la chilena.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said she will have to move out of her apartment in Washington, D.C., because of threats she’s received after federal agents executed a search warrant at her residence last week as part of an immigration fraud probe. “Obviously, I can’t continue to live there … Because our address has been public…
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said she will have to move out of her apartment in Washington, D.C., because of threats she’s received after federal agents executed a search warrant at her residence last week as part of an immigration fraud probe. “Obviously, I can’t continue to live there … Because our address has been public…
WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump and cabinet officials held a roundtable at the White House on Wednesday to highlight the administration's progress in combating cybercrime, including preventing $1.6 billion in losses and cracking down on sexual extortion.
Rep. Ilhan Omar revealed new details about last week’s federal raid on her home in Washington, D.C., which she said was “designed” to intimidate her. The Minnesota Democrat sat down with MS NOW’s Chris Hayes on Wednesday for her first interview since federal agents searched her residence as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Omar, who is the first Somali American member of Congress, said she had returned home from traveling and was only asleep for 2 1/2 hours before she was awakened by agents “pounding on the doors” on Oct. 12. The congresswoman told Hayes her first thought was that “something was on fire.”
“You don’t show up to somebody’s house that early in the morning unless you’re trying to freak them out. And you know it obviously did freak all of us out,” Omar said.
“It sounded like an urgent evacuation sort-of situation,” she added. “So it took us a while to figure out what was actually happening.”
When her husband opened the door, Omar said she was presented with a warrant. She also said she was asked to sign a document waiving protections provided to her in the Constitution as a member of Congress. Omar declined.
“That was obnoxious. I couldn’t understand why they would think that I would sign such a thing,” she said.
During the raid, which Omar said lasted four to five hours and involved as many as 25 agents, the authorities “mostly conducted themselves in a decent way” as they searched the home for items in compliance with the warrant, the congresswoman said.
‘A bizarre, bizarre thing’
Omar said the federal agents seized her phone, an old phone, her youngest daughter’s old phone, her husband’s notebooks and a camera he had received from his uncle. She also said they took a Somali phrase book for children, which her husband was using to learn the language.
The Democrat said she was “surprised” when she was handed a receipt for the items.
“To walk away with 17 items of, like, 10 that were just notebooks and like old phones was such a bizarre, bizarre thing,” she said.
Asked about the raid on Omar’s house, the Justice Department told MS NOW in a statement last week that Homeland Security Investigations “executed a judicially authorized search warrant” and said it was “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.”
A source told MS NOW the warrant listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings and conspiracy. According to CNN, which cites people familiar with the probe, investigators are looking into whether Omar or her late father made false statements about her age during the citizenship process.
Omar arrived in the United States in March 1995 at the age of 12 after fleeing the civil war in Somalia and spending four years in a refugee camp in Kenya. She later became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000 at 17.
“The people who knocked on my door, searching for papers, literally have his papers,” Omar told Hayes of her father on Wednesday. “They are the ones who processed us to come to the United States.”
While she said she takes the matter “seriously,” she doesn’t believe the federal government has a case to prosecute her.
“It would be a huge undertaking to, I suppose, indict a 12-year-old for being so cleverly conspiring to defraud immigration services to come to the United States,” she said. “I’m sure there are a lot of smart 12-year-olds, but that seems like a leap.”
Trump’s ‘obsession’
This isn’t the first time Omar’s immigration status has been scrutinized. The Washington Post reported that in 2019, during President Donald Trump’s first term, a political appointee asked immigration authorities to look into Omar’s records for any evidence of fraud. But Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing to open a full investigation, according to the report.
Omar also told Hayes she did not know about the 2019 probe until she “saw it in The Washington Post reporting a couple of days ago.”
“I did hear that they opened, that there was an opening of my immigration file, but I didn’t know to the extent of what the opening of my investigation meant and who opened it,” she said.
The Wall Street Journal reported the Biden administration also looked into Omar but declined to move forward due to lack of evidence.
When asked if she believes Trump has nothing to do with the ongoing investigation into her, Omar told Hayes, “Absolutely not.”
“He’s got everything to do with it,” she said of Trump, pointing to reported efforts by his first administration to investigate her.
Trump and Omar have had a long-standing, contentious relationship. In 2019, the president attacked Omar and three other Democratic congresswomen in a series of tweets telling them to “go back” to the countries they came from. At a rally days later, Trump criticized Omar by name as the crowd chanted “Send her back.”
Over the years, Trump has frequently repeated unproven rumors about the congresswoman’s personal life, including her immigration status and an unproven conspiracy theory that she had married her brother to bypass U.S. laws.
In 2025, Omar told The Guardian she believes Trump has an “unhealthy and creepy obsession” with her.
Omar told Hayes she suspects the raid was partly the president making good on his promise after years of threatening the congresswoman.
“They’ve done this sort of full press where they kept alluding to the fact that something was going to happen to me,” she said. “And I think a lot of their right-wing influencers, who seem to have direct connection to not just the president but his orbit, I think they were starting to lose faith that these were empty promises and they had to do something. I believe to say, ‘Hey, look, we raided her house.’”
The 44-year-old and mother of three has spoken openly about the surge of death threats she has received since taking office. She told Hayes that she and her family will have to move from their home due to the highly publicized raid.
“Obviously, I can’t continue to live there,” she said. “So we have to figure out where to move to because our address has been public, and with the death threats that I deal with, it’s no longer going to be feasible to be in that house and have my kids visiting off and on, having people track them.”
Despite the challenges, the congresswoman said she would not let the president’s efforts break her.
“In my faith teachings, we believe that God doesn’t give you more than you can handle,” she said. “I think I’m designed uniquely by God to withstand all of this.”
Omar said she was “confident” in her truth that she did nothing wrong and told Hayes she believed the justice system would prevail.
“If I continue to stand up to bullies and people who are carrying out ungodly corruption, I’m going to be okay,” she said.
This story has been updated to include additional information.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) called a controversial political ad run by Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) “shameful,” saying she thinks it will hurt Republicans up and down the ballot in Ohio. “This ad is going to go down as the most shameful, disgusting, offensive ad this election season,” Mace told CNN’s Jake Tapper on…
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) called a controversial political ad run by Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) “shameful,” saying she thinks it will hurt Republicans up and down the ballot in Ohio. “This ad is going to go down as the most shameful, disgusting, offensive ad this election season,” Mace told CNN’s Jake Tapper on…
Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie themidterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.
The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.
“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.
The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.
In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.
The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.
“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”
The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including byfiling a lawsuit against California election officials last week.
Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”
DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”
A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”
The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”
Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.
Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.
CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito further distanced themselves from their Supreme Court colleagues on Wednesday when they were the only two jurists to note their objections to the court’s refusal to let the Trump administration immediately enforce its preferred policy on gender-affirming care in prison.
The court’s unsigned order contained no explanation from the majority or the dissenting duo. Still, it’s the latest data point showing Thomas and Alito backing the administration even when their fellow GOP appointees — including President Donald Trump’s own three appointees — decline to do so.
Wednesday’s order follows last month’s Supreme Court rejection of Trump’s desired mail-ballot restrictions for the midterm elections. That loss led the president to lash out at the court, including his own appointees, while calling Thomas and Alito “legends.”
Asked during a recently published CBS News interview about a Wall Street Journal study showing that Alito sided with Trump more than any of his colleagues, the justice said he’s “not trying to decide cases to help President Trump.”
Whatever his or Thomas’ intentions, their latest actions spotlight their dynamic of voting for the president’s position when other justices don’t. Their votes come ahead of the rapidly approaching Election Day in less than two weeks, with voters set to determine which party will control Senate confirmation of justices for the near future.
Alito said he’s staying on the court at least through this court term, even if Democrats win back Senate control. Thomas has likewise not signaled that he is stepping down imminently. If he stays on the court through the next term, he will become the longest-serving justice ever. In their late 70s, Thomas and Alito are the two eldest members of the current court, but they aren’t very old by the court’s historical standards.
Yet if Trump has an opportunity to appoint their successors or any other justices before he leaves office in 2029, their latest votes underscore why he will likely model his next selection(s) on them, rather than on the justices he has put on the bench thus far, who have backed him in a series of significant cases but not all of them.
Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
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.
A bipartisan group of nearly two dozen House members is urging President Trump to ask tech mogul Elon Musk to give Ukraine access to Starlink satellite systems to hunt for missile launchers inside Russia, according to a letter sent Wednesday and obtained exclusively by The Hill. The signatories included seven House Republicans alongside 16 Democrats,…
A bipartisan group of nearly two dozen House members is urging President Trump to ask tech mogul Elon Musk to give Ukraine access to Starlink satellite systems to hunt for missile launchers inside Russia, according to a letter sent Wednesday and obtained exclusively by The Hill. The signatories included seven House Republicans alongside 16 Democrats,…
As Donald Trump’s administration bows to Russia in disturbing ways, top MAGA influencers in the “America First” movement are getting in on the Russophilia by increasingly wedding themselves to leaders and nations that are effectively under Vladimir Putin’s thumb.
And a newly announced conference in Serbia is a prime example.
On Monday, the Conservative Political Action Conference revealed plans to hold a convention in Belgrade in November. Other recent CPAC conventions abroad have effectively served as authoritarian pep rallies, and the Serbia gathering seems like it will be no different. CPAC is touting an appearance by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, who has earned the moniker “Little Putin” for his deference to the Russian strongman.
Announcing the inaugural CPAC Balkans — Belgrade, Serbia, November 18–21, 2026.
President Aleksandar Vučić will headline our first-ever conference in Southeastern Europe, bringing together conservative leaders from across the region united around sovereignty, faith, family, free… pic.twitter.com/J4OpPU5ryz
It’s notable that this convention was announced amid reporting, including from MS NOW’s David Rohde, about former Trump campaign officials’ advocacy on behalf of pro-Putin Serbian nationalists.
Given all of this, it’s no wonder why MAGA world adores Serbia’s current leadership: This is a movement broadly infatuated with authoritarianism. But it’s noteworthy that, much like with Russia, even some conservatives are wary of Serbia’s antidemocratic backsliding.
Ahead of Serbia’s parliamentary elections this weekend, a bipartisan group of seven senators — including Republicans from Iowa, Mississippi and North Carolina — issued a warning about Vučić’s party.
“Unfortunately, both Serbian and international election observers found serious infringements to the integrity of the previous parliamentary elections in 2022. We are now seeing similarly troubling signs ahead of the October 25 vote,” the senators said in a statement. “Reports of unlawful wiretapping of opposition members and attempts to discredit and undermine election observation missions are deeply concerning, and Serbian authorities must ensure a level playing field for all parties and open access to the polls for all citizens.”
Olivia Wilde returns to the screen and the director’s chair with 'The Invite,' a comedy about secrets, desire and the cracks that emerge when a couple believes they know each other a little too well. The film, in which she stars alongside Penélope Cruz and which is already generating Oscar buzz, marks the return of one of the most controversial figures in recent Hollywood history.
An actress turned director, outspoken feminist and central character in one of the entertainment industry's most talked-about sagas, the 42-year-old filmmaker has gone from being the young doctor on 'House' to embodying the contradictions of an industry that applauds women for breaking the rules, but does not always forgive them for doing so on their own terms.
If there is one thing Wilde has made clear during the promotional tour for 'The Invite,' it is her fascination with Penélope Cruz. The director and actress has even joked that she has not washed her hands since touching those of the Madrid-born star, who plays a free-spirited woman capable of turning her neighbors’ relationship upside down. The couple next door are played by Wilde herself and Seth Rogen.
The two have displayed their easy rapport throughout recent promotional appearances, with Wilde at one point describing her co-star as “the sexiest woman alive.” In one scene, Cruz unexpectedly kisses Wilde. The filmmaker has admitted that she completely lost her composure, her mind went blank and she fell hopelessly in love with her co-star.
Wilde is one of the filmmakers who has openly spoken about the difficulties she encounters when casting her films and trying to find actresses who have not undergone cosmetic procedures.
“As a director, I now am constantly searching for actresses who can still move their faces. And it’s not easy!” she said. “I don’t blame them. I’m a product of the same machine, I’m under the same pressures; I get it.”
“I just pray for technology to allow treatments that just aren’t so aggressive. Like, there’s something so medieval about all these things. Can’t someone come up with something better than Botox?” she continued.
For Wilde, the issue is also personal. In recent years, her own public appearances have been met with cruel remarks about her looks, her age and speculation about possible cosmetic procedures.
In 2026, photos of the actress became fodder for mockery on social media, particularly because of her extreme thinness. Wilde herself responded with humor, acknowledging that in those viral images she really did look “like a little dead sarcophagus man.”
On Jan. 6, 2021, the world woke up to an image that would dominate headlines for months: Olivia Wilde and Harry Styles walking hand in hand. Wilde was directing her second film, 'Don't Worry Darling,' and Styles, the former One Direction member, was one of its stars.
The couple’s 10-year age gap, the singer’s global fame and Wilde’s recent separation turned the relationship into a media phenomenon. The spiral soon became impossible to stop: Shia LaBeouf’s departure from the project, rumors that the film’s lead actress, Florence Pugh, had a strained relationship with Wilde and was unhappy with the displays of affection between the director and Styles during filming, and the supposedly viral incident in which Styles appeared to spit on Chris Pine at the Venice Film Festival.
Wilde has since acknowledged that she perhaps should have pushed back against some of the allegations. At the same time, she has recalled that she was experiencing moments of great happiness in her private life.
“ It was like a tornado was right outside the door, and if you were inside you were like, ‘It’s so nice,’” she said. “And you open the door and be like, ‘Ah,’ like a fucking like cow and a tractor would fly by.”
Wilde grew up in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., in a household where current affairs were effectively a member of the family. Her parents, journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, hosted dinner parties attended by guests as prominent as Mick Jagger, Steven Spielberg and writer Salman Rushdie.
Her mother worked as a war correspondent and went on to become a renowned investigative journalist before taking her career in a different direction. In 2018, at the age of 66, she ran as a Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, with her daughter’s public support. She lost to the Republican candidate, but her trajectory left Wilde with a powerful example of political engagement and reinvention.
The role that changed everything for Olivia Wilde, who was born Olivia Cockburn and later adopted the surname Wilde in homage to Oscar Wilde, was that of internist Remy Hadley, better known as Thirteen to both Dr. House and the millions of viewers of the medical drama.
Joining the show's fourth season turned her into an international star and one of Hollywood’s most sought-after actresses. After starring in big-budget films such as 'Tron: Legacy' and 'Cowboys & Aliens,' both of which met with limited critical and commercial success, Wilde later said she felt exploited and objectified by the film industry.
“I had become numb to the fact that every meeting I went on — with men and women, by the way — I was going to be judged on my physical appearance,” she said.
Wilde’s feminist commitment predates the controversies that would later put her at the center of the headlines. In 2017, when the #MeToo movement brought the industry’s abuses of power into the spotlight, she joined the growing chorus of voices calling for change. She also became one of the public faces of Time’s Up, the initiative launched by women in Hollywood to combat sexual harassment and promote safer workplaces, and spoke at the 2018 Women’s March in Los Angeles.
“This business belongs to all of us,” she said that year, advocating for an industry in which her peers could work without fear and without having to compete for opportunities that had historically been denied to them.
Wilde’s debut as a feature-film director came in 2019 with a low-budget comedy that quickly achieved cult status among a generation of moviegoers: 'Booksmart.' The film, which follows two high school students on one final night of partying before graduation, was a hit with both critics and audiences.
Wilde had long wanted to stop being just another cog in the industry and take a more active role in the creative process.
“I always assumed acting was the way in, because for many young women … they’re told, ‘You love movies — you should be a movie star,’" she told 'Variety.' "No one tells a little girl, ‘Why don’t you become a director?’ It’s just not a part of the conversation. But if a little boy says he loves movies, it’s like, ‘Maybe one day you’ll direct. Maybe you’ll be the next Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese.’”
“Romantic and insane.” That is how Olivia Wilde describes her first great love story, which began in 2003 when she was just 19 years old.
At Burning Man, the unconventional arts and music festival held in Nevada’s desert, the young Wilde said “I do” to her boyfriend of only a few months, filmmaker Tao Ruspoli, the son of an Italian prince. By her own account, it took only seconds for her to realize that the ceremony might have been a little too impulsive.
“Immediately, I was like, 'Wait, what the fuck did I just do?'” she remembers thinking.
The marriage ended in divorce in 2011, although the two have remained on good terms.
The same year she finalized her first divorce, in 2011, Wilde met the man who would become the father of her two children: actor Jason Sudeikis (from 'Ted Lasso'). The two met at a 'Saturday Night Live' party, where Sudeikis was working at the time, and went on to build a family with their children, Otis and Daisy.
In November 2020, after several years together and a long engagement, they ended their relationship, setting off a custody dispute that would later make international headlines. In April 2022, during a film industry convention in Las Vegas, Wilde was interrupted onstage when a person approached to hand her legal documents related to the custody case.
Although Sudeikis maintained that he had no knowledge of how or when the papers would be served, Wilde described the incident as “incredibly traumatizing.”
In her day-to-day life, Wilde is often spotted on the streets of New York wearing far simpler outfits, the kind that are easy for ordinary women to take inspiration from. The look pictured here is a perfect example: a blazer, a basic T-shirt, an oversized bag, trousers and sneakers.
It is the sort of outfit anyone might wear to the office or while running errands.
On the red carpet, Wilde has also earned international attention for her distinctive sense of style. Her looks strike a balance between understated elegance, as seen in this high-necked black Saint Laurent gown with structured shoulders, and a more daring sensibility, whether through sheer fabrics or outfits that showcase her sculpted midriff.
Tailored suits are another staple of her wardrobe, further proving her flair for sharp suiting. The architect behind a style that has grown increasingly sophisticated and eye-catching over the years is Karla Welch, who also styles Tracee Ellis Ross and Sarah Paulson.
The actress is also a favorite of fashion houses with markedly different aesthetics, including Chloé (pictured here in one of the brand’s designs), Saint Laurent, Michael Kors, Louis Vuitton and Valentino.
Her regular appearances at international fashion weeks, particularly in Paris and New York, have made her one of the celebrity names every brand wants seated in its front row.
Earlier this October, Wilde answered the call of fashion’s designer and label of the moment, stepping out in an updated tweed suit by Matthieu Blazy for Chanel. Elegant yet contemporary, the look demonstrated how her trademark bohemian, '70s-inflected style can also take a decidedly classic turn.
It seems that for Wilde, neither in fashion nor in life, much is beyond reach.
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."
“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.
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."
“[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. 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.
Login
