ReportWire

Tag: Democratic Party

  • Sen. Peter Welch lays out health care concerns fueling government shutdown

    [ad_1]



    Sen. Peter Welch lays out health care concerns fueling government shutdown – CBS News










































    Watch CBS News



    The federal government shutdown stretched into its second day on Thursday with no sign of a deal. Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont joins “The Takeout” to discuss the stakes of the fight.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Another day of Government Shutdown impacts Atlanta

    [ad_1]

    Photo by Tabius McCoy/The Atlanta Voice

    It was quiet outside the CDC on the morning of Thursday, Oct. 2. Foot and car traffic in and out of the gates was almost obsolete. It has been over 24 hours since the federal government shutdown, which took effect a minute past midnight on Oct. 1. Among the several federally funded initiatives impacted was the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which furloughed roughly 8,700 employees as a result.

    This is the first government shutdown in six years, since the record-long shutdown that took place from 2018 to 2019. Government shutdowns usually happen because of disagreements over funding between the Democratic and Republican parties. The current shutdown had been brewing since early September, and as the fiscal year ended, the two parties could not agree on government spending, particularly related to health care funding.

    In simplest terms, Democrats wanted to include Affordable Care Act subsidies and Medicaid protections in the recent stopgap funding. At the same time, Republicans wanted a “clean” funding bill without any changes to health care programs. This disagreement led to the shutdown on the morning of Oct. 1.

    Photo by Tabius McCoy/The Atlanta Voice

    When government shutdowns take place, the impact doesn’t just affect high-ranking political officials on Capitol Hill; it affects everyday workers locally, right here in Georgia, where more than 110,000 are federal employees.

    As a result of the current government shutdown, many federal employees are going without pay until an agreement is reached. “Certainly, we all have friends and family who know people who work for the federal government, including the CDC. If they’re furloughing half of the staff, that touches a lot of people in Atlanta,” said Staci Fox, president of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. The lack of pay during this indefinite shutdown period disadvantages households that rely on federal paychecks for living necessities.

    The shutdown also comes at a time when many federal entities, such as the CDC, FDA, and Department of Education, had already faced layoffs due to reduced federal budgets. The CDC alone laid off more than 600 employees in August 2025, according to data provided by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to the Associated Press.

    In the midst of the shutdown, programs such as WIC and SNAP are at risk. In Georgia, over 190,000 people benefit from WIC, putting families who rely on funding for food and baby formula at substantial risk. Additionally, more than 1 million residents in the state receive some form of federal funding from SNAP. “This is also children and elderly—to the tune of 1.4 million Georgians getting financial support to put food on their tables. This goes beyond someone losing a paycheck because they’ve been furloughed. This is a real economic security issue for families across the country, and certainly right here in Georgia when the government stops doing its job,” Fox said. Although SNAP and WIC have some contingency funds in place, if those funds are exhausted during the shutdown, millions of families could be negatively impacted.

    As of the afternoon of Oct. 2, 2025, there are no votes scheduled in the United States Senate today. A potential vote could occur on Friday, but no decision has been made yet. Earlier this morning, Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account about his plan to meet with the Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought.

    [ad_2]

    Tabius McCoy, Report for America Corp Member

    Source link

  • Trump approval slipping among Latinos, but Democrats haven’t made major gains

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown that began Wednesday prompted the White House to cancel a celebration in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month with Latino supporters, a key voting group for President Trump in 2024. Despite periodic events showcasing GOP efforts to woo Hispanics, that support may be eroding.

    Latinos made up a big part of the coalition that helped propel Mr. Trump to victory — he won with nearly half of Latino voters — a historic high of 48% for a Republican presidential contender. A majority of Hispanic male voters backed him in the race against former Vice President Kamala Harris. 

    But recent polling suggests Hispanic support for the president and his policies has dropped, primarily over economic issues, including the high prices of groceries and housing

    In a New York Times/Sienna poll this week, 69% of Hispanics said they disapprove of the way Mr. Trump is handling his job as president, and 58% said they believe he has made the economy worse since he took office. 

    Polling commissioned by the Democratic National Committee over the summer found similar sentiments among Hispanics, indicating Mr. Trump’s approval rating is heavily net negative, and by June had become slightly more so, compared to April, after his first 100 days in office. The commissioned polling, taken in November, April and June, was used to brief national Democratic officials during the Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in Minnesota in August. 

    More Latinos said immigration reform was important to them in June, compared to November 2024, around the presidential election. Then, they ranked it as their sixth-most important issue, but in June, immigration reform was their second-most important, trailing only their concern about the cost of living and inflation. Since President Trump took office, his administration has cracked down on immigrants it says are here illegally, and recently, the Department of Homeland Security said it was on pace to deport 600,000 undocumented immigrants by the end of the year. 

    By June, the vast majority of the respondents said they were closely following the Trump administration’s immigration actions, and almost half reported that they feared being deported, and they feared family members or friends could also be deported. 

    Latino voters have been consistent about their top issue, the economy, Democratic officials learned. It was their top issue in November and that was still the case in June. At that time, they viewed the economy as bad and worried it was getting worse. Just under a fifth of Latino Trump voters said it was possible or likely that he and Republicans would lose their support.

    “Latinos trusted him, believed him when they gave him their votes in 2024 when he promised that he was going to bring down the cost of groceries, gas and rent,” said Democratic strategist  Maria Cardona.

    But the Democratic-commissioned polling also found that Latinos’ fears about Mr. Trump’s economy did not seem to be translating into support for Democrats — by April, they still had not made major gains among these voters. 

    “Democrats need to talk about what they will do for Latinos, not just how horrendous Donald Trump and Republicans have been,” Cardona said. “Democrats need to lead with ‘this is what we will do for you, here is how we will help you and your family live a better life,’ which is again the reason why we all came to this country to begin with.”

    Democrats and Republicans will have an opportunity to test their support in November’s off-year elections in New Jersey and Virginia. In 2026, Republicans are counting on a high Latino voter turnout as they fight to hold on to the House majority next year. 

    “The Hispanic sentiment on the ground is we haven’t seen the lower cost of energy, or food prices fast enough,” said Jorge Martinez, strategic director of Libre, a national grassroots organization that mobilizes Latino voters. 

    Martinez says it’s too soon, however, to see the impact of economic policies under the One Big Beautiful Act that Republicans are rebranding as the “Working Families Tax Cut” law ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

    “If Republicans can stay focused on creating progress, growth policies that bring more energy and lower cost of goods and services, I can see things getting better for Republicans, but they have to deliver on those results,” said Martinez. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the 3 senators who broke with Democrats to support a bill to keep government open

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Three senators — Democrats Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, along with Independent Angus King of Maine — broke ranks Tuesday night to side with Republicans on a GOP spending bill that would have kept the government open. And now, they’re facing heat for it.

    While Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and nine other Democratic senators voted to advance a similar GOP spending bill in March, they are not helping their Republican colleagues get their latest appropriations bill past the finish line this time around, citing several concerns, including that the package will increase healthcare costs for Americans because it fails to extend Obamacare subsidies.

    “This administration doesn’t care about Nevadans, but I do. That’s why I cannot support a costly shutdown that would hurt Nevada families and hand even more power to this reckless administration,” Cortez Masto said after voting in favor of the Republican appropriations bill Tuesday night. “We need a bipartisan solution to address this impending health care crisis, but we should not be swapping the pain of one group of Americans for another.”

    BLAME GAME: GOP SPOTLIGHTS ‘SCHUMER SHUTDOWN’ WHILE DEMS LASH OUT AT REPUBLICANS AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

    Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, Sen. John Fetterman, and Sen. Angus King broke with Democrats to support a Republican-led continuing resolution.  (Getty Images)

    “I voted AYE to extend ACA tax credits because I support them—but I won’t vote for the chaos of shuttering our government,” Fetterman said after his Tuesday night vote supporting the GOP appropriations package. “My vote was for our country over my party. Together, we must find a better way forward.”

    King called his decision to support the bill “one of the most difficult votes” he has taken during his tenure, but, like Cortez Masto, expressed fear that a government shutdown could embolden Trump, who has already hinted at using the shutdown as leverage for more government cuts.

    “The irony of this vote is many feel that this was an opportunity to stand up to Donald Trump,” King said in a video he posted to social media after voting to support the GOP’s appropriations package. “The irony, the paradox is, by shutting the government we are actually giving Donald Trump more power, and that was why I voted ‘yes.’ I did not want to hand Donald Trump and Russell Vought, and Stephen Miller additional power to decimate the federal government.”     

    The senators’ decision to support the Republican appropriations bill has garnered public criticism from at least one of their Democrat colleagues in Congress. Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., said he was “very upset” to see his Democratic Party colleagues in the Senate “already caving” to Republicans. 

    Meanwhile, Goldman said Democrats in the House are “very united” in opposing the Trump-backed GOP appropriations package. 

    SHUTDOWN EXPLAINED: WHO WORKS, WHO DOESN’T AND HOW MUCH IT COSTS  

    Angus King in 2025

    Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, listens during a Senate Armed Services committee hearing on the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense on Jan. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Jack Gruber-USA TODAY)

    Fox News Digital reached out to Schumer for comment about the Democratic Party defections, but did not receive a response in time for publication.  

    Republicans, meanwhile, have said that the defections represent Schumer’s dwindling political power within the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the GOP will need eight total Democrats to cross the aisle in order for their continuing resolution to pass.

    Schumer at the Capitol

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., turns to an aide during a news conference in June on Capitol Hill.  (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Cortez Masto added that she has been working the phones since her Tuesday night vote, urging both Republicans and Democrats “to come together.”

    Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rev. Barber: Ignore Poor People at Your Own Risk

    [ad_1]

    At a time when communities across America are grappling with rising costs, attacks on democracy, and deep inequality, Bishop William J. Barber II is clear: America’s future depends on whether we can turn shared pain into shared power — and whether our leaders will dare to lift all of us, not just some of us.

    In this conversation with Word In Black’s deputy managing director, Joseph Williams, at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 54th Annual Legislative Conference, Rev. Barber gets straight to the point. Poor and low-wage people, he says, are the most powerful — and the most ignored — voting bloc in America.

    RELATED: Rev. Barber: America Must Decide Death Is No Longer an Option

    His warning to the Democratic Party: Ignoring the poor would be “at your own political demise.” Barber cites recent data showing that nearly 19 million people who supported Biden-Harris in 2020 didn’t turn out in the midterms — largely because they didn’t hear a clear plan to tackle poverty and low wages.

    “51% of our children, even before Trump, were in poverty,” he says. And millions of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured, so offering a bold economic vision can’t be optional.

    Some say America needs another Martin Luther King Jr. to lead us forward. But Barber, who serves as president of Repairers of the Breach, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, and architect of the Moral Monday movement, rejects that narrative.

    “Martin Luther King never said he was the leader,” he says, noting that the March on Washington happened because of broad coalition work.

    “I don’t think in any period of history it’s just a person. I think that’s a misstatement of history,” he says. Real change, he insists, comes from the ground up — from organizing in communities, states, and local movements that add up to national transformation.

    Watch the full conversation in the video above.

    [ad_2]

    Liz Courquet-Lesaulnier

    Source link

  • US government shuts down with funding deal out of reach on Capitol Hill

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — The federal government has officially shut down after a deadlocked Congress failed to pass a funding measure to keep the lights on – and no one inside the Capitol knows what will happen next.

    A weekslong stalemate between Republicans and Democrats over enhanced Obamacare subsidies has turned into the first government shutdown since 2019. Leaders of both parties are privately and publicly adamant that they will not be blamed for the funding lapse. Republicans insist Democrats need to simply agree to extend current funding for another seven weeks. But Democrats refuse to do so without major concessions for lending their votes to pass any funding measure in the Senate.

    Senators left the Capitol on Tuesday night in a state of deep uncertainty about how long the shutdown could last. The Senate is on track to vote again late Wednesday morning on the same GOP funding plan — which Republican leaders have vowed to put on the floor day after day until enough Democrats yield and agree to reopen the government. But many Democrats have declared publicly they will not relent, even as President Donald Trump and his budget office have ramped up threats to use the shutdown to further shrink the size of government — in some cases permanently.

    “It’s going to be very harmful for working people,” a visibly exasperated GOP Sen. Josh Hawley told CNN moments after Democrats blocked the bill. “I don’t know how it ends. They don’t know how it ends,” he said. “You’re asking millions of people to pay a really high price.”

    In the Democratic party, the pressure is now on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to keep more of his members from yielding to the GOP pressure campaign to support their seven-week funding bill and agree to negotiate later on the Obamacare subsidies. That task will become tougher with every day of a shutdown, particularly as Trump has threatened to cancel programs favored by Democrats. Inside the party, there’s growing concern about the damage that the White House budget office could cause across the country that can’t be easily reversed by Congress.

    Asked if he’s concerned that the White House could do permanent damage to the government, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse told CNN: “Of course, who wouldn’t be? We have a madman in charge.”

    He said Democrats now need to “make sure that Trump is held responsible for all of that, pays the price for it.”

    Some cracks have begun to show: Two more members flipped their positions to back the GOP bill on Tuesday night in the final vote before a shutdown: Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania also backed the GOP bill and has criticized his party’s strategy during the shutdown fight.

    At least two other Democrats appeared to be seriously contemplating their vote on the floor Tuesday — which Republicans took as another sign of weakening in the Democratic party’s stance.

    Senior Democrats had long conversations with Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, both of New Hampshire, on the floor before they ultimately voted with Schumer and the rest of their party. After Shaheen cast her vote, she went straight to Senate Republican Leader John Thune and spoke with him privately for several minutes.

    Asked later about what appeared to be extensive lobbying ahead of her vote: Shaheen told reporters: “No, I was just having conversations with other people who are thinking long and hard about how we move forward.”

    She added that she ultimately decided to vote against the bill to force Republicans into talks on ACA subsidies: “I thought getting this done so that we can now hopefully get back to the negotiating table was the best approach.”

    The beefed up premium subsidies, which were first approved as part of a Biden administration Covid-19 rescue package in 2021 and later extended, make Obamacare coverage more affordable for lower-income Americans and enable more middle class households to qualify for assistance.

    They spurred a record 24 million people to sign up for policies for 2025. If the enhanced subsidies are allowed to lapse at year’s end, premiums are expected to skyrocket by 75%, on average, for 2026, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

    Meanwhile, GOP leaders insisted there are other Democrats who are anxious about a shutdown and want to find an off-ramp to the looming crisis.

    “There are Democrats who are very unhappy,” Thune told reporters Tuesday night, adding that he is “having conversations” with some Democrats that he declined to name. “There are others out there I think who don’t want to shut down the government but are being put in a position by their leadership that ought to make all of them very uncomfortable. Tonight is evidence, there is some movement there.”

    Schumer, however, was adamant that the American people would see Republicans as causing the shutdown — not his own party — because of the looming health care cliff: “At midnight, the American people will blame them for bringing the government to a halt.”

    But asked by CNN whether he can guarantee that nine of his Democrats would not cross over and vote with Republicans, the New York Democrat did not answer.

    “Our guarantee is to the American people. We’re going to fight as hard as we can for their health care, plain and simple,” Schumer said, when pressed about the GOP’s plan to put up the same funding plan again and again until enough Democrats yield.

    Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii was hopeful but also doubtful pressure to cut a deal will build on Republicans from their own constituents who will face higher health care costs when their enhanced subsidies expire at the end of this year.

    “Let’s hope that they come around to the fact that they’re hurting a lot of their own constituents by not negotiating on the health care issue,” she said. “But you never know, because they apparently don’t care.”

    GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — who is seen as a potential dealmaker on any ACA subsidies deal — told reporters that she believes there still is room to negotiate on health care.

    “I think we do have to talk about the impending cliff that we’re looking at with the premium tax credits. What that’s going to look like, I think, is absolutely a subject of discussion,” Murkowski said.

    “I hope that people who are interested in seeing this shutdown come to a quick end are willing to talk about ways that we might be able to accomplish that,” Murkowski said.

    Shutdown impact

    The shuttering of the federal government means that hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be furloughed, while others who are considered essential will have to keep reporting for work – though many won’t get paid until the impasse ends. Still others, however, will continue collecting paychecks since their jobs are not funded through annual appropriations from Congress.

    About 750,000 federal staffers – who earn a total of roughly $400 million each day – could be furloughed, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It noted that the figure could change if the shutdown is prolonged.

    Americans will also feel the shutdown in a variety of ways. While some essential activities will continue, other services will shut down. While air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration employees will remain on the job, staffing shortages have led to snarled flights and longer security lines during past shutdowns.

    It remains unclear whether visitors will be able to go to the more than 400 national park sites during the shutdown, but the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo will be open at least until October 6 using budget funds from previous years. In the past, some states have said they will use their own funds to keep their national parks open during the impasses.

    Senior citizens, people with disabilities and others will continue to receive their monthly Social Security payments, while jobless Americans will keep getting unemployment benefits as long as their state agencies have enough administrative funds to process them. Medicare and Medicaid payments will also continue to be distributed.

    Medical care and critical services for veterans will not be interrupted during a government shutdown. This includes suicide prevention programs, homelessness programs, the Veterans Crisis Line, benefit payments and burials in national cemeteries. However, the GI Bill Hotline will be suspended, as would assistance programs to help service members shift to civilian life. Also, the permanent installation of headstone and cemetery grounds maintenance will not occur until the shutdown is over.

    [ad_2]

    Sarah Ferris, Morgan Rimmer, Manu Raju, Tami Luhby and CNN

    Source link

  • The conspiracy theorists who claim Kamala Harris really won in 2024

    [ad_1]

    Election denial has lately come to be viewed as a feature of the political right, reflected by the lawsuits, conspiratorial documentaries, and “Stop the Steal” protests that followed Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. But in the months since 2024, a similar—albeit much quieter—form of election denial has emerged in parts of the progressive left.

    These theories range from claims that Elon Musk used Starlink satellites to hack the election to a the quasi-mystical TikTok subculture known as the 4 A.M. Club,whose members believe the timeline glitched and Kamala Harris won in a parallel reality. But the most prominent claims have been rooted in data-heavy spreadsheets and statistical jargon.

    One of the most popular of these theories suggests that a 2024 National Security Agency audit confirmed that Kamala Harris won the election, a claim which gained notoriety after it appeared in This Will Hold, an anonymously published Substack. The post alleges that one of the audit’s supposed participants, an ex-CIA officer named Adam Zarnowski, possessed insider information about a global cabal of corrupt actors, international criminals, foreign operatives, billionaires, and political insiders who conspired together to manipulate the election’s outcome.

    As The Atlantic recently reported, there is no independent verification of Zarnowski’s background beyond his own claims. A LinkedIn profile describes him as a “former CIA paramilitary operations officer” but provides no evidence that he is an expert in election security or statistics. Snopes has been unable to “independently verify Zarnowski’s employment with the CIA or his alleged involvement in [the] NSA audit.”

    The Election Truth Alliance (ETA), a self-described nonpartisan watchdog group, has used statistical models to push claims that Harris won the election. In Rockland County, New York, for example, Harris received fewer votes for president than incumbent Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) did for Senate. The ETA suggests that possible election tampering can be inferred from this discrepancy.

    But Charles Stewart, a political scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, points out that this apparent discrepancy isn’t unusual and can easily be explained. Stewart attributes Harris’ weaker performance to her unpopularity among the county’s Orthodox Jewish voters relative to Gillibrand, as well as the broader trend of voters skipping races or voting split-ticket.

    The organization’s claims go further. In a recent interview with the progressive commentator David Pakman, the ETA’s Nathan Taylor claimed that vote patterns in Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania illustrate a series of unusual relationships between candidate support and voter turnout. Using color-coded heat maps, Taylor asserts that his group has discovered statistical distortions similar to those seen in countries with a reputation for fraudulent election practices, such as Russia and Uganda. Using these maps, Taylor alleges that up to 190,000 votes cast in Pennsylvania may have been algorithmically shifted, which would be more than enough to flip the state.

    To lend credibility to these claims, the ETA circulated a working paper by the University of Michigan political scientist Walter Mebane that used statistical techniques to examine Pennsylvania’s 2024 election results. Mebane told The Atlantic that while he was aware the group had used his public methodology and data models, he had not reviewed their findings and did not endorse their conclusions. 

    To this day, no court case or credible audit has validated any of these claims. Independent experts have repeatedly affirmed that the 2024 election, like the 2020 election before it, was secure and legitimate. Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, told reporters in November 2024 that her office detected no threat that could “materially impact” the outcome, assuring everyone that “our election infrastructure has never been more secure” and that election officials were better prepared than ever to deliver a “safe, secure, free, and fair” process.

    Although this is hardly the first time that members of the left have questioned an election’s outcome, political scientist Justin Grimmer told The Atlantic that this behavior is also “strikingly similar” to that of those on the right who rejected the 2020 election results. “The most remarkable thing,” he added, “is the similarity in the analysis that we’re seeing from the bad claims made after 2020 and these similarly bad, really poorly set up claims from 2024.”

    David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research put it more bluntly, telling the magazine that these claims “ring as hollow and grifting as nearly identical claims made by those who profited off the Big Lie that Trump didn’t lose the 2020 election.”

    [ad_2]

    Jacob R. Swartz

    Source link

  • State DFL committee to hear appeal in Minneapolis mayoral endorsement decision

    [ad_1]

    The fight for a crucial endorsement in the Minneapolis mayoral race will be heard on Monday.

    The city’s DFL party was put on probation and not allowed to give an endorsement in the mayoral race after an investigation by the state party found issues with its voting process. The Minneapolis DFL is appealing the state party’s decision.

    The appeal centers on the chapter’s endorsement of state Sen. Omar Fateh. He won the party’s backing this summer, but the state DFL tossed out those results, citing missing votes and flaws with the convention’s voting system. The Minneapolis DFL appealed that decision, saying the state party’s Constitution, Rules, and Bylaws Committee’s “conduct and its decision are deeply flawed.”  

    “The CRBC has disenfranchised the Minneapolis delegates, mischaracterized their process, and imposed an undemocratic decision of their own on our city,” the Minneapolis DFL said in a statement.  

    After the state party’s decision, which included two years of probation from endorsing a mayoral candidate, some local leaders fired back. Rep. Ilhan Omar called the decision undemocratic. Fateh accused the state party committee of being Frey supporters and donors.

    “This is exactly what Minneapolis voters are sick of. The insider games, the backroom decisions and feeling like our voice doesn’t matter in our own city,” he said.   

    Incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey praised the decision, saying he was “appreciative of the state party, that they conducted a thorough investigation that was based not on politics, but on evidence and facts.”

    The State Executive Committee will hear the appeal virtually at 6 p.m. The meeting is open to the public.  

    Last week, several of the mayoral candidates — including Frey and Fateh — participated in a debate.

    [ad_2]

    Beret Leone

    Source link

  • Republican governor signs into law Trump-backed congressional redistricting map

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Score another victory for President Donald Trump in the high-stakes political battle between Republicans and Democrats over congressional redistricting.

    GOP Gov. Mike Kehoe of Missouri on Sunday signed into law a new congressional map, Missouri First, that is likely to hand Republicans an additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives ahead of next year’s midterms elections.

    Missouri, once considered a swing state that has dramatically shifted to the right over the past decade and a half, is the latest battleground in the congressional redistricting showdown after the passage of new maps in GOP-dominated Texas and a redistricting push by Democrats in heavily blue California. 

    “I was proud to officially sign the Missouri First Map into law today ahead of the 2026 midterm election,” Kehoe said in a statement. “We believe this map best represents Missourians, and I appreciate the support and efforts of state legislators, our congressional delegation, and President Trump in getting this map to my desk.”

    TRUMP-BACKED REDISTRICTING PUSH TURNS MIDWESTERN STATE INTO NEXT POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND

    Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe of Missouri, applauds while delivering the State of the State address Jan. 28, 2025, in Jefferson City, Mo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)

    Trump, in a social media statement following passage in the GOP-dominated state legislature, called the new map “FANTASTIC” and said it “will help send an additional MAGA Republican to Congress in the 2026 Midterm Elections.”

    The new map targets longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City-area district by shifting it eastward to include rural right-leaning voters. The new map would likely flip Cleaver’s seat and give Republicans a 7-1 advantage in the state’s House delegation.

    Cleaver has vowed to take legal action if the new map is signed into law by the governor.

    “I want to warn all of us that if you fight fire with fire long enough, all you’re going to have left is ashes,” Cleaver said earlier this month as he testified in front of a Missouri Senate committee.

    Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri

    Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver waits to speak against a proposed congressional redistricting plan at a state Senate committee hearing Friday, Sept. 11, 2025, in Jefferson City, Mo (AP Photo/David A. Lieb)

    And pointing to recent public opinion polling, he called the redistricting plan “immensely unpopular.”

    And Missouri House Minority Leader Ashley Aune accused Republicans of pushing to “rig our maps and eliminate our representation in Congress.”

    ABBOTT CLEARS FINAL REDISTRICTING HURDLE AS TEXAS SENATE PASSES NEW TRUMP-APPROVED MAP

    Kehoe’s announcement teeing up the special session came hours after Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas signed into law a redistricting bill passed by the Republican supermajority in the state legislature that aims to create up to five right-leaning congressional districts at the expense of current Democrat-controlled seats in the reliably red state.

    Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas

    Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, seen being interviewed by Fox News Digital, recently signed into law a bill that redraws the Lone Star State’s congressional districts. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News )

    The efforts in Missouri and Texas are part of a broad effort by the GOP to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the 2026 midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats.

    Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House, when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterm elections.

    Democrats are fighting back against the rare, but not unheard-of mid-decade redistricting.

    State lawmakers in heavily blue California have approved a special ballot proposition this November to obtain voter approval to temporarily sidetrack the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission and return the power to draw the congressional maps to the Democrat-dominated legislature.

    Gavin Newsom redistricting

    Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California speaks during a congressional redistricting event Aug. 14, 2025, in Los Angeles. (AP)

    The effort in California, which aims to create five more Democratic-leaning congressional districts and counter the shift in Texas, is being spearheaded by two-term Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is seen as a likely 2028 Democratic presidential contender.

    With Democrats currently needing just a three-seat pickup in next year’s midterms to win back the House majority, Republicans in Indiana, South Carolina, Florida, Kansas and Nebraska are mulling their own GOP-friendly redistricting plans ahead of the 2026 elections. And right-leaning Ohio is under a court order to draw new maps ahead of the midterms.

    Democrats, as they push back, are looking to New York, Illinois and Maryland in the hopes of creating more left-leaning congressional seats.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    In Illinois and Maryland, where governors J.B. Pritzker and Wes Moore are discussing redistricting, Democrats hope to pick up to three more left-leaning seats.

    And Democrats could pick up a seat in Republican-dominated Utah, where a judge recently ordered the GOP-controlled legislature to draw new maps after ruling that lawmakers four years ago ignored an independent commission approved by voters to prevent partisan gerrymandering. 

     

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ken Griffin has a warning for Trump and the GOP: ‘I would not underestimate how grating a 3% inflation rate could be’ on Americans | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    For Citadel CEO Ken Griffin, the political implications of still-elevated inflation are not lost on him.

    Inflation has come down a lot from 9% in 2022 to 2.9% in the government’s latest CPI report. Core PCE prices, the Fed’s favorite gauge of inflation, rose 2.9% in August, matching July’s climb. 

    But inflation has been sticky as tariffs take hold, and Griffin predicted inflation will continue to be in the mid-2% to 3% range next year, still above the Fed’s 2% target.

    “The American voters have been exhausted of inflation,” he told CNBC on Thursday.

    In 2024, the high cost of living was a focal point in Trump’s reelection campaign, and Biden-era inflation hurt Democrats. They lost the White House and Congress, while Trump won all seven swing states.

    Many voters blamed Democratic policies—including stimulus spending—for sustained, high costs, exit polls found.

    “There’s no doubt that the president and the Republicans came to power on the back of frustration with inflation,” Griffin said. “I would not underestimate how grating a 3% inflation rate could be to tens of millions of American households.”

    Inflation could feature heavily in midterm elections next year, as the Republican Party looks to defend narrow majorities in the House and Senate. And voters are souring on Trump’s economy.

    A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed only 28% of respondents approved of Trump’s handling of their cost of living. A YouGov/Economist poll put Trump’s approval rating on the economy at an all-time low of 35%.

    One indicator of affordability has been a thorn in Trump’s side: high mortgage rates. Yet as Trump looks to the Fed for homeowner relief, many worry about political influence over the independent body.

    Trump has been criticized lately for pressuring the Federal Reserve and threatening its independence. Critics argue that his efforts to appoint loyalists to the Fed, public calls to lower interest rates, and attempts to remove a sitting governor represent a clear move to sway monetary policy for political purposes. 

    Griffin advised that continued Fed independence would be in Trump’s interest.

    “If I were the president, I would let the Fed do their job,” he said. “I would let the Fed have as much perceived and real independence as possible, because the Fed often has to make choices that are pretty painful to make.”

    The Federal Open Market Committee cut interest rates by a fourth of a percent earlier this month to buoy a slowing labor market. The move comes after months of continued pressure from the Trump administration on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other committee members to cut rates.

    Still, President Donald Trump has been vocal about cutting rates further, even though the move likely will risk further price increases. 

    Griffin warned that erosion of Fed independence could lead to Americans conflating the White House and central bank.

    “If the president’s perceived as being in control of the Fed, then what happens when those painful choices have to be made?”

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Nino Paoli

    Source link

  • The federal government could shut down soon. Here’s what you need to know

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — A possible federal government shutdown is only days away as congressional lawmakers remain at odds over funding the government beyond September 30.

    Although Republicans control Capitol Hill and the White House, they need at least seven Democrats in the Senate to join them to pass a spending package under the chamber’s rules. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, however, is demanding any funding bill contain an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, along with several other items, to get his party’s support. GOP leaders want an extension of funding for seven weeks, with additional money for security for the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

    President Donald Trump does not appear interested in working out a compromise. He canceled a meeting this week with Democratic leaders and said Thursday that their demands were “totally unreasonable.”

    If the impasse is not resolved, the coming government shutdown could be unlike any other in recent memory. While no two shutdowns are exactly the same, Trump and the White House Office of Management and Budget have already signaled that they are willing to use a totally different playbook — urging agencies to downsize workers in programs whose funding has lapsed and which don’t align with Trump’s priorities.

    Trump is no stranger to government shutdowns. The most recent one occurred during his first term, starting in late December 2018 and lasting 35 days, the longest on record.

    Here’s what we know about the looming government shutdown:

    What is a government shutdown?

    Congress must provide funding for many federal departments and functions every fiscal year, which begins on October 1. If lawmakers fail to pass a spending package for the full year or extend funding for a shorter period, known as a continuing resolution, then many agencies and activities must shutter until Congress appropriates more money.

    Lawmakers have yet to pass through both chambers any of the 12 appropriations bills that make up the federal discretionary spending budget. So the coming shutdown would be considered a full shutdown.

    During prior impasses, Congress approved annual funding for certain agencies, which allowed them to continue operating while other federal departments went dark. That situation is known as a partial shutdown.

    Since 1980, there have been 14 government shutdowns, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    What is the shutdown deadline?

    The shutdown will begin on October 1, first thing Wednesday morning, if Congress doesn’t act before that.

    What programs and payments will stop?

    Every government shutdown differs somewhat, but typically functions that are critical to the protection of lives and property are deemed essential and remain open. Agencies file what are known as contingency plans that detail what operations will continue and how many employees will remain on the job, many of them without pay.

    However, in an unusual move, OMB this time is not posting agencies’ shutdown contingency plans on its website. Instead, the plans are hosted only on each agency’s site — making it harder to assess how the Trump administration will handle the shutdown and which activities it will deem essential. (OMB noted in a memo earlier this week that it had not yet received updated contingency plans from every agency.)

    Previous shutdowns have stalled food inspections; canceled immigration hearings; and delayed some federal lending to homebuyers and small businesses, among other impacts.

    In the most recent shutdown, students had trouble getting needed tax documents from the Internal Revenue Service to get financial aid for the spring semester, and the US Department of Agriculture warned that it could only guarantee to provide food stamp benefits through February.

    Notably, important benefit programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, will continue. Also, key services — including law enforcement and border patrol — are typically deemed essential and aren’t affected.

    Some government functions can continue – at least for a certain period of time – if they are funded through fees or other types of appropriations. For instance, when a shutdown loomed in the fall of 2023, the Internal Revenue Service said it could use some of the funding it received from the Inflation Reduction Act to keep preparing for the upcoming filing season – updating tax forms and technology systems and hiring and training staff.

    If the government shuts down next month, it’s possible that immigration, border patrol and defense activities funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law in July, would continue. The relevant agencies’ contingency plans should specify what functions would remain operational.

    Agencies and administrations have some amount of choice in which services they deem essential, said Molly Reynolds, interim director of the governance studies program at the Brookings Institution.

    In Trump’s first term, Reynolds noted that the administration took some measures to make the shutdown less painful, such as allowing the IRS to process tax refunds — a departure from prior shutdowns.

    But that may not be the case this year.

    “The OMB memo threatening wide-scale federal layoffs if there is a shutdown suggests that this time around, they might be looking to make the shutdown more painful,” she said.

    Will national parks stay open?

    The impact of shutdowns on the 400-plus national park sites has differed greatly in recent shutdowns.

    In 2013, an estimated 8 million recreation visits and $414 million were lost during the 16-day shutdown, according to the National Parks Conservation Association, citing National Park Service data. During the most recent shutdown in 2019, many parks remained open though no visitor services were provided. The Park Service lost $400,000 a day from missed entrance fee revenue, according to the association’s estimates. What’s more, park visitors would have typically spent $20 million on an average January day in nearby communities.

    States have also stepped in to keep some national parks open using their own funds. When a shutdown loomed in the fall of 2023, Utah said it would keep the Mighty 5 parks – Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef and Zion – open, while Arizona planned to keep the Grand Canyon operational. Colorado also said it would also keep its four national parks and other federal lands open.

    A National Park Service Ranger conducts a walking tour in Shark Valley, part of the Everglades National Park, on April 17 in Florida. Credit: Joe Raedle / Getty Images via CNN Newsource

    What’s the impact on airline travel?

    Air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration officers are typically deemed essential and must remain on the job, though they are not paid. But some workers have called out sick during past shutdowns, snarling flights.

    The decision by 10 air traffic controllers to stay home in January 2019 helped end that shutdown. Their absence temporarily shut down travel at New York’s LaGuardia airport and caused delays at other major hubs, including in New Jersey, Philadelphia and Atlanta, driving Trump to agree to a temporary government funding measure.

    How about the impact on federal workers?

    Federal workers bear the brunt of government shutdowns. Some are furloughed, while others are considered essential and have to continue working. But many don’t get paid until the impasse ends.

    In March, the last time a federal government shutdown loomed before being averted, more than 1.4 million employees were deemed essential, according to Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. About 750,000 of them would have continued to be paid since their salaries were funded through other sources.

    Another nearly 900,000 workers would have been furloughed without pay. (Snyderman noted that the estimates did not include the layoffs and departures that occurred in the early weeks of the Trump administration.)

    In 2023, the Biden administration warned that the nation’s 1.3 million active-duty military troops would not get paid, before a shutdown was averted at the last minute.

    This week, judiciary officials warned that federal courts could be affected by a shutdown within days, much sooner than in previous occurrences, because of tight budgets. While judges and Supreme Court justices would continue to be paid, many other judicial employees would not.

    Federal workers are guaranteed to receive their back pay after the impasse is resolved. However, the same is not true for federal contractors who may be furloughed or temporarily laid off by their employers during a shutdown.

    What does a shutdown do to the economy?

    Shutdowns can have real consequences for the economy since federal spending is delayed, and many federal workers pull back on their purchases while they aren’t receiving paychecks.

    The five-week shutdown in 2018-2019 resulted in a $3 billion loss in economic growth that would not be recovered, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. It noted that some private sector businesses would never make up their lost income.

    Also, because the IRS reduced its compliance activities during the shutdown, CBO estimated that tax revenues would be roughly $2 billion lower — much of which would not be recouped.

    The impact stretches beyond the federal government.

    The US Travel Association wrote a letter to congressional leaders in late September urging them to avoid a shutdown, which it said would result in flight delays, longer airport security lines and canceled trips.

    “A shutdown is a wholly preventable blow to America’s travel economy — costing $1 billion every week — and affecting millions of travelers and businesses while placing unnecessary strain on an already overextended federal travel workforce,” wrote Geoff Freeman, the association’s CEO. “The consequences of inaction and immediate and severe.”

    [ad_2]

    Tami Luhby and CNN

    Source link

  • Ezra Klein Argues for Big-Tent Politics

    [ad_1]

    But it’s not in the spirit of giving counsel. I’m not saying you do it—

    No, I take that point. I don’t see myself in those conversations as a counsellor.

    Because, you know, there is a tradition of this—Walter Lippmann giving counsel to this one or that one.

    And doing secret diplomatic missions. The lines were blurry back then.

    So you keep it pretty on the up and up.

    I try to.

    Would you ever go into politics?

    No.

    Absolutely not? You’re making a Sherman statement.

    I’m making a Sherman statement. I think you have to know what you’re good at doing. I think I’m good at doing this.

    What is your sense of your mission as a podcaster, as a writer?

    My sense of mission is simple: I have values and beliefs about how the world should work and what would make the world better, and I try to persuade people of them, but I also try to explore them in an honest way. I do this because I care about where things are going. I’m not dispassionately observing from the sidelines. I am emotionally, intellectually, spiritually involved.

    But what I’m doing, and the way I’m doing it, has changed a lot over the years. In ways that I can follow more through intuition than through some framework. The version of me that was writing “Wonkblog,” and telling everybody about health care and aging in one chart, is not what I’m doing on my podcast now. My podcast is a forum in which I’m not primarily trying to be persuasive. Over time I think it has persuasive elements, but it’s mostly other people talking. I have a lot of people on the show whom I disagree with. And I think it acts as a space in which certain kinds of conversations can be had and then can be put into conversation with each other. And that matters.

    In my column, I’m more prescriptive. What goes into, eventually, the book “Abundance,” comes more from the column, and that’s me trying to understand the world and trying to find ways to confront things in it that I find puzzling or unnerving. I try to take seriously questions that I don’t love. I don’t try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it is working.

    You are an important figure at what I think is still, today, the most important news-gathering organization on earth, the New York Times, but it’s also one that everybody has opinions about. And recently Thomas Chatterton Williams wrote a book about the summer of 2020, which was dramatic in a lot of quarters, including the Times. James Bennett fired. Bari Weiss left and created The Free Press. What’s your opinion about Bari Weiss’s increasing influence? It looks like she’s about to be a very important figure at CBS News.

    Yeah, it seems like she’s about to take over CBS.

    What do you think?

    My thing about Bari—and I’ve been on her show—I have a lot of admiration for how good she is at what she does. My disagreements with Bari are that I think she’s asymmetric in sympathy and generosity.

    Tell me what that means.

    I’ve thought The Free Press’ work on, say, starvation in Gaza has been really bad.

    Spell it out.

    It’s done this whole thing, like, Well, a lot of the kids who have died and have been reported on, well, they had secondary conditions. And, yes, when you starve a population the people who die first will be the most vulnerable. But that’s not exculpatory. There was overwhelming evidence of how bad things were in Gaza. I felt that they were trying to whitewash it.

    I think Bari, though, is an insane talent spotter. If you look at what she’s built at The Free Press, she’s very, very good at finding people, at pulling them in, at networking with them. She’s sort of an impresario. Bringing in Tyler Cowen to be a columnist was a very good idea for them.

    The economist.

    I’m somebody who’s edited a site, Vox, right? I know how hard this is to do. And Bari has an incredibly sensitive feel for the political moment. It is not my feel for the moment, and her politics are not mine.

    What are her politics? How would you describe them?

    What I see her trying to do is something that used to be somewhat more common, which is to self-consciously be what she would define as the center. And I see The Free Press tacking back and forth around that. It was much more sort of pro-Trump, I would say, when he was running and the Democrats were in power. But now that he’s in it’s, like, Oh, no, they’re the vandals. The publication is a little bit, to me, like the old New Republic, doing things they used to do. . . . Actually, it’s funny. When I was a blogger, this was something we all used to complain about all the time. All of these organizations that we felt were using this concept, this amorphous concept of the center as a positioning device—

    That it was a dodge.

    No, it wasn’t a dodge—it was navigational. They weren’t dodging. They were just kind of . . . there were a lot of politicians and a lot of players who had felt like their politics were hewing to some idea of the center, as opposed to a very consistent set of views and principles. And, as media has become polarized, many fewer places are doing that. I think Bari saw a market opportunity in that. Is her center what I think is the center? No. But I recognize a lot of editorial skill there.

    [ad_2]

    David Remnick

    Source link

  • Where Should the Democrats Go from Here?

    [ad_1]

    On Sunday, MAGA’s great and good travelled to Arizona to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist who was assassinated this month. Much was remarkable about the event—the huge turnout, the alternating notes of forgiveness and retribution, the generally messianic atmosphere—but something that Pete Hegseth, the Fox host turned Pentagon chief, said onstage stood out to me. Hegseth recalled meeting Kirk more than a decade ago, when Kirk was building his youth movement, Turning Point USA. “I still have the sticker: ‘Big government sucks,’ ” Hegseth said. Kirk “pursued that truth with more vigor than anyone I’ve ever met,” he added. “We always did need less government. But what Charlie understood and infused into his movement is, we also needed a lot more God. Charlie had big plans, but God had even bigger plans.”

    There was that messianism again—but what caught my ear was the stated disavowal of big government. In May, when I started writing Fault Lines in the absence of Jay Caspian Kang (who will return next week), my first column explored the apparent contradiction between the Trump Administration preaching a fairly classic vision of small government, not least via the supposedly cost-slashing work of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, and simultaneously expanding the power of the state over civil society in radical new ways. In the end, I concluded that, actually, this wasn’t much of a contradiction because the cuts often doubled as assertions of leverage, or intimidation. Since then, even the pretense of pursuing limited government has become all but impossible to sustain. Musk crashed out of D.C. without making a serious dent in spending. President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” has been projected to add some three trillion dollars to the federal deficit. Hegseth’s Department of Defense was (sort of) renamed the Department of War, at least symbolically trading a reactive principle for an aggressive one (while claiming an expansive new remit to execute supposed drug smugglers in the Caribbean). Most significantly, Trump and his Administration ratcheted up their use of state power to go after independent institutions, critics, and inconvenient bureaucrats. After Kirk was killed, Trump quite openly declared war on some vaguely-defined radical left and threatened to punish speech that he deems hostile to his cause. Jimmy Kimmel—whose late-night talk show was briefly taken off air by ABC after Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, criticized remarks that Kimmel had made about Kirk’s killing and hinted darkly at regulatory consequences—was one casualty. (His show continues to be preëmpted on certain network affiliates.) There will be others.

    These latest attacks on free expression in general, and on Kimmel in particular, have been denounced even by some of Trump’s allies, suggesting that some on the right do still believe that “big government sucks,” at least in this context. (Ted Cruz pungently likened Carr’s behavior to that of a Mob boss.) In the past few months, I’ve written about other intra-MAGA tensions, over questions related to the proper role of the state—on spending and strikes on Iran, for instance—and more lurid plotlines, not least the ongoing controversy surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files. Such splits have illuminated not only the unwieldy ideological breadth of the MAGA coalition but also the fraying bonds linking the Trump diehards to the podcast hosts and comedians—often collected under the “manosphere” rubric—who were perceived as crucial to Trump’s reëlection but who were never unwavering true believers. Some of the latter were highly disapproving of the Iran strikes, as I wrote about in June, and have more recently expressed concern about Kimmelgate, among other issues. This week, the Department of Homeland Security took down a video showing Theo Von appearing to celebrate the act of deportation after Von said that it didn’t reflect the nuance of his “thoughts and heart.”

    Squint, and these controversies may even point to durable trouble for MAGA, at least once Trump is no longer on the scene. At Kirk’s memorial last weekend, a MAGA rapper told my colleague Antonia Hitchens that “they think we’re praising Trump like our God,” but “Charlie showed me there’s more to life than this movement.” For now, though, Trump continues to sit athwart both the Republican Party—acting simultaneously, as I wrote in the aftermath of the Iran strikes, as the “charismatic glue holding an otherwise disparate movement together and its wrathful enforcer”—and the federal government. His recent, blatantly authoritarian rhetoric and behavior—suggesting that critical media reporting is “illegal”; openly advocating for the indictment of the former F.B.I. director James Comey—have further raised the stakes of other questions to which I’ve returned repeatedly this summer: What shape is the Democratic resistance (or #Resistance) to Trump taking? And is it working? At what feels like yet another inflection point, the contours of a dual imperative for the Democratic Party are becoming clearer—oppose Trump with one strong voice while starting to build a new broad church of its own. The Party is still not doing enough on either count.

    In part, the resistance to Trump continues to feel fragmented, as I wrote in my second Fault Lines column, because it must coalesce within an increasingly splintered media ecosystem. As far as the institutional Democratic Party is concerned, it’s not all that surprising that it has failed to cohere around a winning message, let alone a singular messenger, so soon after such a crushing defeat. And some prominent figures are already projecting strength in the face of Trump’s abuses. I wrote in June about Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker becoming a particularly strident anti-Trump voice, California Governor Gavin Newsom (who initially sought to play MAGA whisperer on his podcast) punching back after Trump dispatched the military to Los Angeles, and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander getting arrested while accompanying a migrant in immigration court. Since then, Pritzker has furiously opposed Trump sending troops to Chicago (and, seemingly, succeeded in forestalling that outcome for now); Newsom is leading a redistricting charge after Republicans in Texas egregiously gerrymandered maps on Trump’s orders; and Lander was arrested again, last week, following a sit-in at an immigration holding area, alongside ten other elected Democrats. (It’s perhaps a sign of the times that Lander’s second arrest caused barely a ripple in the national discourse.)

    But other Democratic leaders are not meeting this dangerous moment with the focus it requires, and, if the Party as a whole is still widely perceived as feckless, that is in no small part self-inflicted. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House, was asked on MSNBC this week if he shares his predecessor Nancy Pelosi’s relish for going toe-to-toe with Trump. Jeffries described sending the President a letter laying out the Party’s position on funding the government. Prominent Democratic-aligned thinkers have continued to wring their hands regarding the precise words that the Party’s leaders should and shouldn’t use, pointlessly self-flagellating over the term “microaggression” while Washington burns. And many of the more direct attempts to fight Trump come across as stale. Last month, we were treated to the miserable spectacle of Newsom tweeting IN UNHINGED ALL CAPS, like Trump does. Various lawmakers have since imitated this tactic even less convincingly. After ABC suspended Kimmel, Chuck Schumer, the flailing Senate Minority Leader, wrote, “IS EPSTEIN THE REAL REASON TRUMP HAD KIMMEL CANCELED?!”

    In fact, this post was a reflection of two separate failures of Democratic communication, the other one being many Democrats’ baffling insistence that almost everything Trump does is a distraction from the Epstein controversy—perhaps the closest thing this summer has had to a singular narrative through line, even as vastly more consequential stories have come and gone—and attendant demand that his Administration publish the investigative files from the case, without actually knowing what is in them. This failure strikes me as one of strategy; yes, the Epstein story has stuck to Trump with unusual persistence given the President’s penchant for shrugging off negative press, but increasingly it seems closer to an irritation than a fatal political wound. More important, it’s a failure of morals. There may well be additional damaging information about Epstein and his associates that has yet to come out. But in the absence of much fresh substance—this controversy, remember, was sparked by Trump officials promising to release the files themselves, then under-delivering, sparking the fury of the MAGA base—Democrats have gleefully joined in what amounts to a right-wing witch hunt that has cheapened a real tragedy, and undercut the Party’s standing as one that defends evidence-based inquiry and due process. Ro Khanna, a leading Democratic proponent of releasing the files, said in July that he trusts the American people not to tag any innocent parties whose names appear therein with guilt by association—a confidence that I do not share and that, in this of all moments, might actually be dangerous.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Allsop

    Source link

  • Democrat succeeds her late father in Congress as GOP House majority shrinks

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Democrat Adelita Grijalva has won a special election in battleground Arizona, securing the congressional seat left vacant by her father’s death and further eroding Republicans’ razor-thin House majority.

    The Associated Press reports that Grijalva, a former Pima County supervisor, defeated business owner and contractor Daniel Butierez, the Republican nominee, in Tuesday’s election in southern Arizona’s 7th Congressional District.

    Grijalva will serve the remaining 15 months of the term of Raul Grijalva, who died in March following complications from cancer treatment.

    TRUMP NOT ON BALLOT BUT FRONT-AND-CENTER IN 2025 ELECTIONS

    Arizona Congressional District 7 special election nominees Republican Daniel Butierez, left, and Democrat Adelita Grijalva participate during a televised debate, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2025, in Tucson, Ariz. (Kelly Presnell/Arizona Daily Star via AP)

    The younger Grijalva’s victory was anything but a surprise in the left-leaning district. Democrats enjoy a nearly two-to-one voter registration advantage over Republicans in the Hispanic-majority district, which stretches from Yuma to Tucson and includes almost the entire length of the state’s border with Mexico.

    HEAD HERE FOR FOX NEWS’ 2025 ELECTION COVERAGE

    Republicans currently control the House 219-214, with two vacant seats remaining. 

    Besides Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, there’s also a vacancy in Texas 18th Congressional District, a heavily Democrat-dominated district in Houston, following the March death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner. The special election to fill the seat will be held on November 4, which is Election Day 2025.

    Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District, a right-leaning seat where Republican Rep. Mark Green stepped down in July to take a job in the private sector, is also currently vacant. The special election to fill the seat will be held on December 2.

    grijalva

    The late Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, died in March of complications due to cancer treatment. (Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Grijalva, thanks in part to her family name and her support from national progressive rock stars, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, grabbed over 60% of the primary vote this summer in a five-candidate showdown.

    Progressive activist and social media influencer Deja Foxx came in a distant second.

    Grijalva, who with her victory became Arizona’s first Latina in Congress, targeted President Donald Trump as she campaigned,

    “In Congress, I commit to fight Trump’s cruel agenda, like the Big Ugly Bill that took away coverage from nearly 383,000 Arizonans and 142,000 children,” Grijalva pledged in a social media post, as she took aim at Trump, congressional Republicans, and their sweeping domestic policy measure that they named the One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Adelita Grijalva

    Democratic congressional candidate Adelita Grijalva is interviewed in Tuscon, Arizona, on July 15, 2025.  (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

    Grijalva had also said that if she won, she would immediately sign a discharge petition by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. The petition, which is currently just one vote shy of passing, calls on the GOP-controlled House to vote to urge the Justice Department to release the files on the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    Butierez, as he campaigned, had been promoting himself as the change candidate in a district controlled by Democrats since the seat was created over two decades ago.

    “This is your chance to actually get a Representative who will represent everyone. If you vote we win, if you don’t only the radicals will have representation,” he wrote on X.

    Candidate Daniel Butierez

    Candidate Daniel Butierez answers a question during the Republican primary debate inside the Arizona Public Media studio in Tucson, Arizona, on June 9, 2025. (Mamta Popat/Arizona Daily Star via AP)

    Butierez, who as the 2024 GOP congressional nominee lost to the elder Grijalva while Trump narrowly carried the southwestern battleground state at the top of the ballot, easily won this summer’s Republican primary in the special election.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    While Trump carried Arizona last year after losing it in 2020, 2024 Democratic presidential nominee and then-Vice President Kamala Harris won the district by 23 points. 

    Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin, in a statement after the race was called, said that “Rep.-elect Grijalva won a hard-fought race. Now, Arizonans will have a fighter in their corner who will stand up to Trump on behalf of families who want to see real leadership in Washington.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can Progressive Mayors Redeem the Democratic Party?

    [ad_1]

    Back during Michelle Wu’s first run for mayor of Boston, in 2021, I joined a Zoom call to help boost support for her strong climate policies. During the pandemic years, Zoom calls were politics, but I still often find myself on them, in the process meeting candidates for local offices around the country. It’s a good analgesic for the wearying cynicism that is the hallmark of the moment, since these people are often idealistic, enthusiastic, and smart. But, once in a while, you encounter true political talent—something that is as rare but as obvious as, say, great athletic prowess or a deep musical gift. That was Wu. Even with the awkwardness of Zoom—“Unmute!”—she seemed able to project both intelligence and, for lack of a better word, kindness: not an emotional Bill Clinton I-feel-your-pain response, but a sense that she was concerned with the problems presented and had the wherewithal to take them on.

    I know people who insist that when they first heard Barack Obama’s keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, in Boston, they knew he would one day be President, and I confess that I had the same feeling when I first heard Wu. Bostonians picked her from a crowded field in that first run, and two weeks ago she essentially won a second term eight weeks before the election, beating the Democrat Josh Kraft, the second-place challenger in the city’s nonpartisan primary, seventy-two per cent to twenty-three. Given Boston’s top-two system, Kraft, who is the son of the billionaire owner of the Patriots, could have stayed in the race until November, but he decided on a graceful exit. If there’s an election at all, Wu will be the only name on the ballot.

    Much has been made recently of the plight of the congressional Democratic Party, as it struggles to find a response to President Donald Trump’s unprecedented assault on our system of government—a bumbling that has resulted in record-low approval ratings. And much has been made of Zohran Mamdani’s rapid rise in the world’s media center, as he came out of the general vicinity of nowhere to clobber Andrew Cuomo in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary. Both are important stories, but I think they may be caught up in a larger one: it’s possible that the Democrats are assembling a new way of governing, not at the federal level but at the municipal one. Three candidates for election in major cities this fall exemplify that possibility: Wu, in Boston; Mamdani, lucky in his choice of opponents and now far ahead in the polls; and Katie Wilson, in Seattle, who came through her primary nearly ten points in front of the incumbent Democrat, Bruce Harrell, whom she will face again in November. (Seattle’s system is similar to Boston’s.) They’re all relatively young and “progressive,” and they all, crucially, seem to be avoiding many of the well-worn grooves of American political fights by figuring out ways to talk about things that actually matter to the diverse pool of voters who will inevitably make up more and more of the electorate. That is, they don’t just make affordability or crime or livability a “theme” in their campaigns and hit up millionaires to make ads about them; they take it for granted that those are the daily struggles of many of their constituents and make those issues their focus, suggesting new ways to take them on. In the process, they each appear to be short-circuiting the cynicism I described before: voters seem won over not because they’re necessarily convinced that these politicians can solve all their city’s troubles but because these candidates seem likely to at least try.

    Wilson, for instance, entered politics by founding Seattle’s Transit Riders Union, which won free bus rides for young people across the city. As an activist, she helped write the JumpStart tax bill, which raises taxes not on employees but on the corporations that pay the heftiest salaries. In February, Mayor Harrell, at the behest of local heavies such as Amazon and Microsoft, led the opposition to a referendum on another tax on those companies which would help pay for public, mixed-income housing in a city that desperately needs it. The law passed in a landslide, which seemed to confirm the idea that he was an old-school Dem, opening the door for Wilson’s challenge.

    Wu—the first woman of color elected mayor of a city that has held a reputation for racism—has gained national attention this year for standing up to Trump on immigration. (Wearing an Ash Wednesday smudge on her forehead, she faced down with aplomb a congressional panel investigating her “sanctuary city”; it followed a few weeks after the border czar, Tom Homan, said that he would be “bringing hell” to Boston.) But she won all twenty-two of the city’s wards in this month’s primary because she has paved streets, dealt with subway crises, and turned Boston into an almost unbelievably safe city. Last year, the city saw just twenty-four homicides.

    As for Mamdani, the forces of Cuomo, Trump, and Rupert Murdoch have all tried to paint him as a dangerous radical who will fuel antisemitism across the five boroughs, even as, by passing higher taxes on the wealthy, he will drive the city’s billionaires to Florida. In response, Mamdani focussed on such things as the Thirty-fourth Street busway. The manner in which he addressed it, of course, is telling—alongside his former primary opponent the city comptroller Brad Lander (the city’s highest-ranking elected Jewish progressive, whose support has helped undercut the antisemitism angle), Mamdani demonstrated that he could walk across town faster than the bus could move through traffic.

    Mamdani clearly knows how to communicate ebullience, a talent that is all the more potent for its scarcity in current political life. (Where Republicans now specialize in rage, Democrats tend toward the anodyne—think Chuck Schumer and his “very strong” letters to Trump.) He also shows a deep knowledge of the city’s history—witness his recent video, about the nineteenth-century investigative reporter Nellie Bly, which he used to introduce his proposals for addressing the issue of mentally ill people on the streets. And, unlike many politicians who play up urban troubles the better to cast themselves as savior, Mamdani seems to truly love the town where he lives. Usually clad in a white shirt and skinny tie, he’s somehow reminiscent of J.F.K., who campaigned with a twinkle in his eye. Fiorello La Guardia, New York’s three-term progressive mayor, also had that gift, and so does A.O.C., who won her House seat on the strength of her bartender and “Congresswomen-dance-too!” spirit as much as on her policy positions. In an Insta age, that kind of joie de vivre is remarkably effective.

    [ad_2]

    Bill McKibben

    Source link

  • One of Silicon Valley’s most prominent Democrats just called Trump’s $100k H1-B visa fee a ‘great solution’ | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    As tech leaders across Silicon Valley blasted President Donald Trump’s new $100,000 H-1B visa fee as a threat to innovation, Netflix cofounder Reed Hastings broke ranks, calling it “a great solution.”

    In an X post on Sunday, Hastings said he has worked on H-1B politics for three decades and argued the steep cost would reserve visas for “very high-value jobs,” eliminating the lottery and giving employers more certainty.

    Hastings’ support is surprising for a few reasons. For one, as one of the biggest Democratic ‘megadonors‘ who is heavily involved with party politics, he rarely endorses any of Trump’s actions and in fact has said the President “would destroy much of what is  great about America.”

    Secondly, Hastings’ support cuts against the dominant mood in the tech industry, where most companies are alarmed about higher costs and the chilling effect on talent pipelines. Elon Musk, the on-again, off-again ally of the Trump White House, has fiercely criticized the potential changes to the program. 

    Many local tech leaders have said that the six-figure fee could deal a serious blow to innovation and competitiveness in Silicon Valley. Venture capitalist Deedy Das, a former H-1B holder and partner at Menlo Ventures, warned that the policy undercuts America’s biggest advantage: Its ability to attract global talent. 

    “If you stifle even that, it just makes it that much harder to compete on a global level,” he told CBS News

    Smaller startups, Das added, could see their financial “runway” shortened by months if forced to absorb the new cost, while some founders say they’ll simply stop sponsoring foreign hires altogether. 

    What the H-1B is—and what it has become

    The H-1B program was created in 1990 to allow U.S. companies to hire foreign workers in “specialty occupations” that require highly technical or professional expertise. Theoretically, it’s meant to bring rare talent – think engineers, doctors, computer scientists and specialized researchers. Each year, Congress caps the number of new visas at 85,000, a number far below demand.

    In practice, the program has evolved into something messier. Roughly 70% of visas go to Indian nationals, many not head-hunted by Silicon Valley firms but by outsourcing giants like Infosys, Wipro, and Tata Consultancy Services, many of whom work for some part of the IT sector. Those companies contract out employees to U.S. clients, leading critics—including President Donald Trump—to accuse them of undercutting American workers with lower-wage labor. 

    Defenders argue the U.S. economy desperately needs these skills and that the visa holders often fill jobs that would otherwise go vacant. 

    Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and a one-time staunch supporter of Trump, famously had a Christmas-time bout with the MAGA base over his support for H-1B visas.

    “There is a dire shortage of extremely talented and motivated engineers in America,” Musk posted on X. “If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE.”

    He has said that he, like “many Americans,” is himself here due to the visa. 

    Confusion, then clarification

    Against that backdrop, Trump’s Friday proclamation requiring a $100,000 payment for each new petition sent shockwaves through the tech sector.

    Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initially said the fee might be annual, fueling panic among employers. By Saturday, the White House clarified: it’s only a one-time payment applied to new petitions in future lotteries, not renewals or re-entries by existing visa holders. 

    “This is NOT an annual fee,” spokesperson Karoline Leavitt wrote on X.

    The clarification calmed some immediate fears, but not the broader unease. Many employers rushed to get their H-1b holders tickets to fly into the U.S. before the fee was enacted. Indian biotech professional Shubra Singh told CNBC that her Saturday dinner in Pittsburgh with H-1B friends was derailed by anxious news alerts that left many rushing to change travel plans.

    Economic whiplash in India

    The financial reverberations were immediate. Shares of major Indian IT outsourcing firms—including Infosys, Wipro, Tech Mahindra, HCL Technologies, and Tata Consultancy Services—fell between 1.7% and 4.2% on Indian stock exchanges during Monday trading.

    Citi Research said in a note that the fee could shave about 100 basis points from margins and cut earnings per share across the IT sector by roughly 6% if companies continue staffing through H-1Bs. Analysts, including JP Morgan’s Toshi Jain, also predict fewer Indian students may choose U.S. universities if the post-graduation visa route now carries a six-figure price tag.

    Yet some see opportunity. Accel partner Prashanth Prakash said the disruption could redirect top graduates toward India’s startup ecosystem.

    “If Indian talent no longer heads to the U.S., it could be a boon for local entrepreneurship,” he argued.

    SquadStack CEO Apurv Agrawal told the Economic Times of India the H-1B fee turmoil is pushing Indian professionals to see India itself—not the U.S.—as the ultimate destination for world-class talent.

    “With the kind of AI-first companies and global-scale opportunities being built here today, we have a once-in-a-generation chance to retain and welcome back world-class talent,” Agrawal said.

    Fortune Global Forum returns Oct. 26–27, 2025 in Riyadh. CEOs and global leaders will gather for a dynamic, invitation-only event shaping the future of business. Apply for an invitation.

    [ad_2]

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Charlie Kirk legacy should be in “dustbin of history,” Ilhan Omar says

    [ad_1]

    Democratic U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota was confronted on Friday about whether she regrets the timing of her comments immediately following the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    Omar said in an interview on CNN, “It’s one thing to care about his life because obviously so many people loved him, including his children and wife. But I am not going to sit here and be judged for not wanting to honor any legacy this man has left behind. That should be in the dustbin of history, and we should hopefully move on and forget the hate that he spewed every single day.”

    Newsweek reached out to Turning Point USA via online form for comment.

    Why It Matters

    The Democratic congresswoman said that she does not align with Kirk’s legacy, saying it was filled with “hate” and “rage baiting.”

    Kirk, 31, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump and a voice of MAGA for younger generations, had a significant social media following, with a podcast as co-founder of Turning Point USA.

    He was fatally shot last week on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, during a question and answer session.

    What To Know

    Omar also spoke with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Friday night about the congresswoman’s ongoing feud with Trump and Republican U.S. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina, which resulted in a failed censure vote this week in the House.

    On September 18, the House narrowly rejected the resolution to censure Omar over her remarks and social media posts following the assassination of Kirk. The vote, which failed 214-213, blocked a proposal led by Mace that also called for Omar’s removal from her committee positions, including the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the House Budget Committee.

    The day after’s Kirk’s death, Omar spoke with journalist Mehdi Hasan on his Zeteo show, telling him: “There are a lot of people who are out there talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate. These people are full of s***, and it’s important for us to call them out while we feel anger and sadness.”

    Four Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in opposing the censure, which Mace said was justified because of what she labeled as Omar’s disrespectful comments on Kirk.

    “When we say we want a country that’s united, it starts with all of us and all of our actions and we’re not seeing that on the other side of the aisle right now,” Omar told Collins on Friday night.

    The Minnesota Democrat also said that she extends “grace” to Kirk’s wife and kids in the interview with CNN, adding, “I cannot imagine what they are going through. But the reality is, his wife sat by him as he said those things.”

    The Democratic lawmaker also called out Trump for urging her impeachment. A two-thirds vote is required to oust members of Congress; they cannot be impeached.

    Democratic U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota speaks during a markup meeting with the House Budget Committee on May 16 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    What People Are Saying

    Trump, on Truth Social Thursday: “Ilhan Omar’s Country of Somalia is plagued by a lack of central Government control, persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence. 70% of the population lives in extreme Poverty, and widespread Food Insecurity.

    “Somalia is consistently ranked among the World’s Most Corrupt Countries, including Bribery, Embezzlement, and a Dysfunctional Government. All of this, and Ilhan Omar tells us how to run America! P.S. Wasn’t she the one that married her brother in order to gain Citizenship??? What SCUM we have in our Country, telling us what to do, and how to do it.

    “Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    Democratic Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, on X Wednesday: “Just took a dip into the cesspool that is Nancy Mace’s social media. It’s shameful the way she is vilifying my friend Ilhan Omar to raise money for herself. Honestly, what Representative Mace has been doing illustrates all that is wrong with our politics right now.”

    What Happens Next

    The failure of the censure motion leaves Omar in her current House committee posts, but Republican lawmakers have signaled that similar efforts could resume.

    Update 9/19/25, 11:09 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris reveals what Trump said to her after she conceded election

    [ad_1]

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris revealed details of a phone conversation she held with President Donald Trump after conceding the 2024 presidential election.

    Newsweek reached out to the White House via email Thursday night for comment.

    Why It Matters

    Harris’ concession, her phone call with Trump and the new memoir carry political and historical significance.

    The book documents the end of a 107-day campaign that placed the sitting vice president atop the Democratic ticket after former President Joe Biden withdrew, and offers an inside account of strategic decisions that shaped the race—notably Harris’ choice of running mate and calculations on electability and coalition-building.

    These decisions, and how she recounts them, could shape how Democrats assess strategy moving forward.

    What To Know

    According to excerpts reviewed by The New York Times, Harris said that during her concession phone call, she asked Trump to help bring the country together but knew in the moment it was “a lost cause.”

    According to the Times, Trump said, “I am going to be so nice and respectful.”

    “You are a tough, smart customer, and I say that with great respect. And you also have a beautiful name. I got use of that name, it’s Kamala,” Trump said, per the Times.

    Harris said that Trump also pronounced her name correctly on the call after mispronouncing it while campaigning, the outlet added.

    The former vice president also highlighted her selection of a running mate, saying she felt the world was not ready for a Black woman and a gay man on one ticket, so she did not choose former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

    “He would have been an ideal partner,” Harris wrote, “if I were a straight white man. But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man. But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk,” per an excerpt reported by the Times.

    Former Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at the Emerge 20th Anniversary Gala in San Francisco on April 30. (Photo by CAMILLE COHEN/AFP via Getty Images)

    What People Are Saying

    Conservative commentator Scott Jennings, on X Thursday: “Kamala Harris claims she couldn’t pick Pete Buttigieg as her VP because he’s gay, so she settled for buffoon Tim Walz. So to her, being gay is a bigger liability than endorsing taxpayer-funded sex changes for minors?! This logic is incoherent. Voters made the right choice.”

    This is a developing story that will be updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says he’s designating Antifa as a terrorist organization

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — President Donald Trump said he is designating the far-left anti-fascism movement Antifa as a terrorist organization, announcing the move on his Truth Social platform in the early hours of Thursday morning UK time.

    It wasn’t immediately clear what mechanism Trump would use to make the designation, and Antifa lacks centralized structure or defined leadership, making it unclear who or what precisely would be targeted.

    “I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” Trump wrote. “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

    A White House official told CNN, “This is just one of many actions the president will take to address left wing organizations that fuel political violence.”

    Trump — who’s overseas for a formal state visit — signaled the move earlier this week in remarks from the Oval Office following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

    A host of administration officials have signaled in the wake of Kirk’s assassination that they’ll be targeting what they claim is a coordinated left-wing effort to incite violence. The moves have drawn protests from some Democrats, who allege Trump is creating a pretext to crack down on dissent or opposing viewpoints.

    It was also not immediately clear what practical effect, if any, the asserted designation would have. In his first term, Trump vowed to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, and his then-attorney general, William Barr, said its activities constituted “domestic terrorism.”

    But Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is not a structured group, but rather, a more nebulous social movement. And while it is illegal to provide “material support” to groups designated by the government as foreign terrorist organizations, there is not an analogous law for domestic groups.

    The term Antifa is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left – often the far left – but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform, CNN previously reported. The group doesn’t have an official leader or headquarters, although groups in certain states hold regular meetings.

    Aside from designating certain left-wing groups as terror organizations, Trump earlier this week also raised the possibility of revoking tax-exempt status for liberal non-profit organizations, and his attorney general has raised the prospect of bringing criminal charges against groups or individuals who are allegedly targeting conservatives.

    “Antifa is terrible. There are other groups,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office. “We have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder,” he added without citing any evidence or elaborating.

    Trump also said he’d been discussing with Attorney General Pam Bondi the prospect of bringing racketeering charges against left-wing groups that he claimed were funding left-wing agitators.

    “I’ve asked Pam to look into that in terms of RICO, bringing RICO cases,” he said, adding: “They should be put in jail, what they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Donald Judd, Kevin Liptak, Alayna Treene and CNN

    Source link

  • Minnesota House to return to full strength for first time since Rep. Melissa Hortman’s assassination

    [ad_1]

    The Minnesota House will soon return to full strength under an unusual power-sharing agreement that forces both parties to work together, following a special election to fill the seat left vacant when the chamber’s top Democrat was assassinated.

    Democrat Xp Lee won Tuesday’s special election with 61% of the vote, according to unofficial results. After the results are certified and he’s sworn in, he’ll fill the seat that was held by state Rep. Melissa Hortman until she and her husband were killed in their Brooklyn Park home in June by a man disguised as a police officer.

    The special election came days after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, in the latest spasm of political violence in the U.S.

    Here’s a look at what to know about Lee and what’s next for the Legislature.

    He pronounces his name X-P, just like JD as in JD Vance. It’s short for Xiongpao.

    The former Brooklyn Park City Council member belongs to Minnesota’s large Hmong American community, and he will become one of several Hmong legislators at the Capitol. His parents fled Laos and he was born in a refugee camp in Thailand. He grew up in Fresno, California. He now works as a health equity analyst for the Minnesota Department of Health.

    Lee’s Republican opponent in the heavily Democratic suburban district northwest of Minneapolis was real estate agent Ruth Bittner.

    Lee’s win preserves a power-sharing arrangement that existed for most of the 2025 legislative session, after the 2024 elections cost House Democrats their majority and left the chamber tied 67-67.

    Hortman brokered that agreement. She agreed to give up her position as speaker and handed her gavel to Republican leader Lisa Demuth, who will continue to serve as speaker through the 2026 legislative session. After a rocky start and some bitter debates along the way, lawmakers accomplished the main task of the session by passing a balanced two-year budget.

    The tie in the House — and the one-vote Democratic majority in the Minnesota Senate — means some level of bipartisan agreement is required to pass anything. Two Senate seats are currently vacant, adding another complication.

    Special elections will also be held Nov. 4 in to fill those two state Senate seats.

    One is for the seat vacated by Democratic state Sen. Nicole Mitchell, of the St. Paul suburb of Woodbury. She resigned in July after she was convicted of burglarizing her estranged stepmother’s home. The other is for the seat held by Republican state Sen. Bruce Anderson, of the Minneapolis exurb of Buffalo, who died in July.

    Given that the two districts are heavily Democratic and heavily Republican, respectively, control isn’t expected to change. But the Democrat seeking Mitchell’s seat is state Rep. Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger, of Woodbury. If she wins, the governor would have to call another special election to fill her House seat.

    The Legislature isn’t due to reconvene until Feb. 17. But Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — who announced Tuesday that he’s running for reelection to a third four-year term — wants to call a special session to address school security and gun violence. He raised the idea following a shooting at a church last month that killed two children and wounded 21 other people.

    But Walz hasn’t set a date and hasn’t produced a formal slate of proposals, though he reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban as he launched his reelection campaign.

    Given the close partisan divisions in each chamber, it’s unclear what, if anything, lawmakers could pass during a special session to address gun violence or school security.

    The added complication in the Senate is that its rules require at least 34 votes to pass most bills. So until the chamber returns to full strength after the next special elections — and an expected 34-33 Democratic majority — nothing could pass in a special session without bipartisan support.

    One of the Senate’s leading advocates of gun safety legislation is Ron Latz, the Democratic chair of the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. He convened an ad hoc gun violence prevention working group after the church shootings in the hopes of reaching some consensus.

    But a pair of contentious meetings this week showed that there’s little to no GOP support for new gun restrictions.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link