Millions of protesters are gathering across the United States and internationally on Saturday for coordinated “No Kings” demonstrations opposing President Donald Trump’s policies and agenda enforced by his administration.
Over 2,600 rallies are taking place simultaneously in cities large and small, with at least one event scheduled in every U.S. state and demonstrations unfolding across multiple continents, including Germany, Portugal, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Prague.
When Newsweek inquired by email on Saturday about the global protests, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded: “Who cares?”
Why It Matters
The “No Kings” movement has previously organized mass rallies against the policies of the president, coordinating 1,800 protests across the United States on June 14, the birthday shared by Trump and the U.S. Army, as the military branch marked 250 years in the spring.
While many of the protests remained peaceful, there were some instances of violence, including a vehicular assault in Virginia.
The demonstrations come as the federal government enters its 18th day of shutdown, which has paralyzed federal programs and services while testing the constitutional balance of power. For Democrats and progressive organizers, Saturday’s protests signal a potential turning point after six months of internal division and demoralization following Trump’s return to office.
Organizers view the movement as a critical moment for democratic resistance and an antidote to what they characterize as authoritarian governance.
What To Know
The “No Kings” movement is organizing Saturday’s campaign to “defend democratic norms and reject authoritarianism,” with protest leaders framing the demonstrations as a choice between “democracy versus dictatorship.”
Organizers have emphasized nonviolent action and conducted a 90-minute safety and security training session earlier this month to help protest hosts practice de-escalation techniques. The movement’s website explicitly discourages participants from bringing weapons of any kind, including those legally permitted.
The protests come amid a broader immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, with the Department of Homeland Security pledging to deport people who do not have proper documentation. Trump has authorized the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops to Chicago and previously to Los Angeles.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.
That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.
The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.
“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.
Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”
The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.
But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.
If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.
“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”
Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.
As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.
But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.
Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”
In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.
But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”
It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.
Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.
But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.
Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.
The government shutdown can hit you in an unexpected way – alcohol and cannabis
A federal shutdown doesn’t just pause bureaucracy—it can have real consequences for workplace safety and public health. In fact, OSHA closed can effect alcohol and cannabis. When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) suspends inspections, outreach, and compliance programs, everyday jobs, healthcare facilities, and even the marijuana industry feel the impact. With the industry already fragile waiting for some nod from the federal government, this impacts thousands of mom and pop businesses and millions of consumers.
During a government funding lapse, OSHA halts nonessential functions like guidance, education, and most inspections. Critical operations—investigating imminent dangers, workplace fatalities, and serious violations—continue, but many routine safety checks slow or stop entirely. This slowdown can allow hazards in workplaces to persist, increasing risk for employees and the public.
Even after the shutdown ends, backlogs in enforcement and inspections can take weeks or months to resolve. Employers are still legally responsible for meeting safety standards, but with limited federal oversight, unsafe practices may go unchecked longer than usual.
Employees in high-risk industries—construction, manufacturing, and chemical plants—may experience delays in OSHA investigations or reporting. Workers could hesitate to report unsafe conditions because complaint processing and whistleblower protections are slowed. For businesses, abatement schedules, contest periods, and enforcement deadlines continue ticking, creating confusion and risk when OSHA staff are absent.
Photo by SEASTOCK/Getty Images
Food, alcohol, and beverage operations feel the impact. OSHA standards cover kitchen and bar ventilation, hot equipment handling, chemical cleaners, and safe storage of liquids. When inspections are paused, restaurants, breweries, distilleries, and beverage production facilities may be more prone to burns, slips, and chemical exposure. These lapses can compromise not only employee safety but also public health.
While it may seem surprising, the cannabis industry is increasingly under OSHA’s watch. Local Emphasis Programs target cultivation, processing, extraction, and retail operations. Cannabis workplaces face unique hazards: dust exposure, mold, flammable solvents, and intensive ventilation systems.
One reported case involved an employee at a cannabis packaging facility who died from respiratory complications caused by ground cannabis dust. OSHA also cited Massachusetts cannabis licensees for failing to treat cannabis dust as a hazardous chemical under its Hazard Communication Standard. When OSHA’s broader operations slow, enforcement and investigations in these sensitive workplaces can be delayed, allowing unsafe conditions to linger.
Healthcare workers face heightened risks during an OSHA shutdown. Hospitals, clinics, and long-term care facilities rely on OSHA guidance for infection control, chemical safety, and ergonomics. Without inspections, unsafe conditions such as improper handling of hazardous medications or unsafe patient lifting practices may persist, putting both staff and patients at risk.
An OSHA shutdown is more than a bureaucratic pause—it affects workplace safety across industries from healthcare to food, beverage, and the cannabis sector. Real lives are at stake, and consumers may unknowingly encounter risk in workplaces that go unchecked. Whether you’re working in a hospital, a brewery, a dispensary, or buying products from these sectors, the effects of paused federal oversight are closer than you think.
Long a conservative standard, the VFW is recognizing science and the needs of their members.
Seen as a symbol of small towns, patriotic service and right of center, the VFW stands up for marijuana. In a move that reflects shifting attitudes toward cannabis and wellness, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) is partnering with Torch Cannabis Co. to introduce THC-infused beverages at select posts across the country. The rollout will occur only in states where cannabis products are legal, and profits will support veteran assistance programs and community services.
The decision marks one of the most progressive steps in the VFW’s 125-year history—aligning the organization more closely with public opinion than with the still-cautious federal stance on marijuana.
Founded in 1899 by veterans of the Spanish-American War, the VFW has long been a cornerstone of American veteran life—championing health care access, benefits, and social connection for returning service members. Its neighborhood posts have served as gathering places for generations, known as much for camaraderie as for the signature bar and beer taps behind it.
The move toward cannabis beverages represents both a generational shift and an acknowledgment of new realities. Many younger veterans—especially those from Iraq and Afghanistan—are increasingly open to low-dose cannabis drinks as alternatives to alcohol or prescription medications.
“This isn’t about turning the VFW into a dispensary,” one national officer explained. “It’s about offering veterans responsible choices and keeping our organization relevant to the next generation.”
For years, veterans have turned to medical marijuana to ease symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, and insomnia. Studies from the Department of Veterans Affairs and independent researchers show mixed results, but many service members report improved sleep, reduced anxiety, and fewer nightmares.
While the VA still cannot prescribe or recommend cannabis under federal law, the VFW has publicly supported research into medical cannabis as a treatment option for veterans. The organization has lobbied Congress to allow VA doctors to discuss it openly with patients—a step most lawmakers have yet to take.
Public sentiment is firmly on the VFW’s side. Surveys show that more than 70 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization, and an even higher percentage favor its use for medical purposes. Yet federal cannabis policy remains largely unchanged, despite repeated bipartisan efforts to loosen restrictions for veterans’ medical care.
By embracing cannabis beverages, the VFW is once again ahead of the curve—echoing the will of its members and the public rather than waiting for Washington to catch up.
For an organization steeped in tradition, the VFW’s new partnership sends a clear message: supporting veterans means evolving with them. Whether the drink in hand is a cold beer or a mild cannabis seltzer, the mission remains the same—honor, community, and care for those who served.
Washington — The House on Friday passed a Republican measure to keep the government funded until Nov. 21, teeing up a fight in the Senate over the GOP plan to avoid a shutdown.
The short-term funding bill passed the House in a 217 to 212 vote, with one Democrat voting in favor and two Republicans in opposition. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana voted against the bill, while Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine supported it.
The measure faces serious headwinds in the upper chamber, where 60 votes are required to advance a funding bill. With a 53-seat majority, Republicans will need to earn the support of at least seven Democrats to move the bill forward. At this point, Senate Democrats appear nearly united in their opposition, with most citing Republicans’ unwillingness to negotiate over Democratic priorities, notably health care.
The Senate is expected to vote on the House measure on Friday, as well as Democrats’ own proposal. Both votes are expected to fail, leaving lawmakers without a clear path forward to avoid a funding lapse at the end of the month. Both chambers are currently scheduled to be in recess until Sept. 29.
“Republicans know that this partisan, reckless, dirty spending bill is dead on arrival in the United States Senate, and yet Republicans continue to refuse to even discuss protecting the health care of the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said on the floor before the vote.
Asked after the vote if he was open to negotiating with Democratic leaders in the event of a shutdown, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said “heck no,” as long as Democrats are dug in on their funding demands.
Earlier this week, House GOP leaders unveiled their bill, which would extend current spending levels for seven weeks. The legislation also funds additional security for lawmakers in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, to the tune of $30 million for Congress and $58 million for the executive and judicial branches. Johnson said Friday that the House could pass additional security funding in a standalone bill next month.
Democrats have proposed a counteroffer to the funding bill that would keep the government open for a month and provide more than $320 million in security funds. But it would also permanently extend enhanced tax credits under the Affordable Care Act that expire at the end of the year, roll back Medicaid cuts in President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” and restore funding for public broadcasters that was rescinded earlier this year.
All are nonstarters with Republicans, who say those provisions do not belong in a short-term funding bill.
“This is what my friends on the other side asked for — a clean bill. No partisan riders, no tricks, no things. And give it to us for a short period,” said Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican. “You got exactly what you asked for.”
Though Democrats often support measures to keep the government funded, the party is under intense pressure to stand up to Republicans and the White House. During the last funding fight in March, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer allowed Republicans to move ahead with their spending bill, a move that earned him severe criticism by members of his own party. Many Democrats argued it would have been better to allow the government to shut down than to go along with Republicans.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, told Punchbowl News on Thursday that he believes that Republicans would bear the brunt of the blame for a shutdown this time around, and that Democrats’ position is “quite strong.” He struck a defiant tone on the Senate floor after the House bill passed.
“When we were in the majority for four years, there was not a shutdown. Not one. Why? Because we did what you’re supposed to do: talk in a bipartisan negotiation and each side has input. The reason we’re having a shutdown now is you and your leadership refuse to talk to Democrats and have any input, and want only your imprimatur on the bill, which we believe hurts Americans badly with health care,” Schumer said, addressing Republicans.
Democratic leaders have urged their Republican counterparts to negotiate with them on a funding plan. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, and Johnson suggested there’s no need, since Democrats regularly support “clean” continuing resolutions to keep the government funded.
“Chuck Schumer’s counteroffer is not a serious one,” Johnson told reporters Friday. “He knows these are not negotiable items. … We were very careful to put no partisan measures in this. There’s no poison pills. None of that.”
President Donald Trump announced on Saturday that the controversial new White House ballroom, currently under construction, will be significantly larger than originally planned, with a capacity of 900 people—nearly 40 percent more than the initial 650-person design.
The expansion comes as construction has just begun on the $200 million project, which Trump discussed in a telephone interview with NBC News while heavy machinery and trucks were visible at the construction site.
Why It Matters
The ballroom represents the biggest change to the White House exterior since the East Wing was expanded under Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, marking a historic alteration to America’s most iconic residence.
As a legacy project intended to serve future administrations, the ballroom will fundamentally change how the White House hosts large diplomatic events and state functions, eliminating the need for temporary tents on the South Lawn that Trump has criticized as undignified for hosting foreign leaders and dignitaries.
Q: My condolences on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk. How are you holding up?
TRUMP: I think very good. And by the way, right there you see all the trucks. They just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they’ve been trying to get… pic.twitter.com/Jrw4j2fnVZ
The 90,000-square-foot ballroom is being constructed at the East Wing location, which has traditionally served as office space for the first lady and her staff.
These offices will be temporarily relocated during construction, with the East Wing set to be modernized and renovated as part of the project. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that “nothing will be torn down” during the construction process.
When asked by reporters how he was “holding up” after the murder of his friend and ally Charlie Kirk just days prior, Trump replied, “I think very good, and by the way, right there, you see all the trucks? They’ve just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they’ve been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years.”
The former real estate developer has taken personal interest in the project’s details, selecting McCrery Architects as lead architect, Clark Construction for building, and AECOM for engineering, according to a White House statement.
The expanded capacity from 650 to 900 people addresses Trump’s long-standing complaint about the White House’s limited event space. Currently, the East Room—the mansion’s largest room—accommodates only about 200 people. Trump emphasized the ballroom’s separation from the historic mansion itself, stating it will be “near it but not touching it” and will pay “total respect to the existing building.”
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump told NBC News: “We’re making it a little bigger. It will be top of the line, as good as it can get anywhere in the world.”
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles: “President Trump is a builder at heart and has an extraordinary eye for detail. The President and the Trump White House are fully committed to working with the appropriate organizations to preserving the special history of the White House while building a beautiful ballroom that can be enjoyed by future Administrations and generations of Americans to come.”
McCrery Architects CEO Jim McCrery: “Presidents in the modern era have faced challenges hosting major events at the White House because it has been untouched since President Harry Truman. I am honored that President Trump has entrusted me to help bring this beautiful and necessary renovation to The People’s House, while preserving the elegance of its classical design and historical importance.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt holds up photos of the planned new White House ballroom during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 31, 2025. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt holds up photos of the planned new White House ballroom during a press briefing at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 31, 2025. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein
What Happens Next?
With construction now underway, the project faces a four-year timeline to meet its early 2029 completion goal.
It’s been more than 60 years since Utah backed a Democrat for president. The state’s last Democratic U.S. senator left office nearly half a century ago and the last Utah Democrat to serve in the House lost his seat in 2020.
Late last month, a judge tossed out the state’s slanted congressional lines and ordered Utah’s GOP-run Legislature to draw a new political map, ruling that lawmakers improperly thumbed their noses and overrode voters who created an independent redistricting commission to end gerrymandering.
It’s a welcome pushback against the growing pattern of lawmakers arrogantly ignoring voters and pursuing their preferred agenda. You don’t have to be a partisan to think that elections should matter and when voters express their will it should be honored.
Otherwise, what’s the point of holding elections?
Anyhow, redistricting. Did you ever dream you’d spend this much time thinking about the subject? Typically, it’s an arcane and extremely nerdy process that occurs once a decade, after the census, and mainly draws attention from a small priesthood of line-drawing experts and political obsessives.
Suddenly, everyone is fixated on congressional boundaries, for which we can thank our voraciously self-absorbed president.
Trump started the whole sorry gerrymandering business — voters and democracy be damned — by browbeating Texas into redrawing its congressional map to try to nab Republicans as many as five additional House seats in 2026. The paranoid president is looking to bolster his party ahead of a tough midterm election, when Democrats need to gain just three seats to win a House majority and attain some measure of control over Trump’s rogue regime.
Meantime, the political race to the bottom continues.
Lawmakers in Republican-run Florida, Indiana, Missouri and Ohio may tear up their congressional maps in favor of partisan gerrymanders, and Democrats in Illinois and New York are being urged to do the same.
When all is said and done, 10 or so additional seats could be locked up by one party or the other, even before a single ballot is cast; this when the competitive congressional map nationwide has already shrunk to a postage stamp-sized historic low.
If you think that sort of pre-baked election and voter obsolescence is a good thing, you might consider switching your registration to Russia or China.
Utah, at least, offers a small ray of positivity.
In 2018, voters there narrowly approved Proposition 4, taking the map-drawing process away from self-interested lawmakers and creating an independent commission to handle redistricting. In 2021, the Republican-run Legislature chose to ignore voters, gutting the commission and passing a congressional map that allowed the GOP to easily win all four of Utah’s House seats.
The trick was slicing and dicing Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, the state’s most populous and densely packed, and scattering its voters among four predominantly Republican districts.
“There’s always going to be someone who disagrees,” Carson Jorgensen, the chairman of the Utah Republican Party, said airily as lawmakers prepared to give voters their middle finger.
In July 2024, Utah’s five Supreme Court justices — all Republican appointees — found that the Legislature’s repeal and replacement of Proposition 4 was unconstitutional. The ruling kicked the case over to Salt Lake County District Judge Dianna Gibson, who on Aug. 25 rejected the partisan maps drawn by GOP lawmakers.
Cue the predictable outrage.
“Monday’s Court Order in Utah is absolutely Unconstitutional,” Trump bleated on social media. “How did such a wonderful Republican State like Utah, which I won in every Election, end up with so many Radical Left Judges?”
In Gibson’s case, the answer is her appointment by Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican who would be considered a radical leftist in the same way a hot fudge sundae could be described as diet food.
Others offered the usual condemnation of “judicial activism,” which is political-speak for whenever a court decision doesn’t go your way.
“It’s a terrible day … for the rule of law,” lamented Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee, who is apparently concerned with legal proprieties only insofar as they serve his party’s president and the GOP, having schemed with Trump allies in their failed attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
In a ruling last week rejecting lawmakers’ request to pause her decision, Gibson wrote that “Utah has an opportunity to be different.”
“While other states are currently redrawing their congressional maps to intentionally render some citizen votes meaningless, Utah could redesign its congressional plan with the intention to protect its citizens’ right to vote and to ensure that each citizen’s vote is meaningful.”
That’s true. Utah can not only be different from other states, as Gibson suggested.
As Zohran Mamdani greeted supporters following his upset victory over Andrew Cuomo in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary in June, the chants erupting around him weren’t about pragmatism or compromise—they were about housing, justice and revenge against a system he said had failed ordinary people.
“This wasn’t just a primary,” Mamdani told the crowd. “This was a referendum on a crumbling status quo.”
The 33-year-old democratic socialist’s victory wasn’t just a local surprise; it symbolizes a broader political shift. Across the nation, more voters—urban and rural, working-class and professional—are rejecting technocratic centrism in favor of leaders who promise to fight, not finesse.
For decades, “moderation” in U.S. politics was synonymous with stability. The Reagan era’s embrace of supply-side economics in the 1980s set a conservative template; the Clinton years extended it through “Third Way” centrism—balanced budgets, free trade, welfare reform. The pitch: a steady hand at the wheel.
Newsweek Illustration/Getty Images
But the underlying economy didn’t support that narrative for long. From 1980 to 2020, the top 1 percent went from controlling 25 percent of national wealth to nearly 40 percent, according to Federal Reserve data. Over the same period, wage growth for middle- and lower-income workers stagnated.
Housing costs also jumped 300 percent in urban areas, far outpacing income. By 2024, Gallup reported just 34 percent of Americans identified as moderate—down from over 40 percent in the early 1990s—while self-identified conservatives and liberals reached historic highs.
“Moderation meant compromise—not excitement. People lost faith that those deals ever made a difference at their own dining table,” Mike Madrid, a political consultant and co-founder of the Lincoln Project, told Newsweek. “When rent and tuition cost more than your paycheck, a handshake won’t help.”
As the 2024 election made clear, politics is now filtered through the realities of inflation and affordability. Inflation peaked above 9 percent in 2022 and remains stubbornly elevated; nearly 40 percent of Americans say the cost of groceries is their biggest concern, a July AP-NORC poll found.
Mamdani’s win in New York was the clearest sign of this mood on the left: a candidate who spoke bluntly about rent, wages and fairness defeating a seasoned moderate with a long career in public service, even if it ended in disgrace. Democrats have often hesitated to fully embrace that message, but Republicans have done the opposite with Donald Trump—rallying quickly and decisively around a single figure who steadily pushed moderates out of his party.
MAGA: The First Rebellion
The first real test of this shift came from the right. Donald Trump’s rise in 2016 marked a direct challenge to Republican orthodoxy, promising to fight for those left behind by globalization while mocking the party’s traditional leadership.
By 2025, the transformation was complete. A mid-2025 Gallup survey found that 77 percent of Republicans identified as conservative, while moderates dropped to a historic low of 18 percent. And even as the president’s overall popularity has slipped in his second term, more than 85 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump’s leadership.
Mitt Romney and John McCain talk on Romney’s campaign bus on January 4, 2012. Mitt Romney and John McCain talk on Romney’s campaign bus on January 4, 2012. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
“Republicans have near unanimity in supporting Donald Trump, and he is exhibiting strong leadership,” Republican strategist Matt Klink told Newsweek. “Contrast this sharply with Mitt Romney‘s loss in the 2012 presidential election and the Republican Party being rudderless.”
It was a hostile takeover of a party that once valued calm stewardship and corporate-friendly conservatism. Mitt Romney was sidelined. John McCain fought Trump until his death in 2018. George W. Bush‘s brand of “compassionate conservatism” was shelved before he even left office. Liz Cheney was cast out of House leadership and lost her Wyoming seat after defying Trump on January 6. Paul Ryan walked away from Congress as Trump’s grip tightened. Marco Rubio fell in line and now serves as his secretary of state. One by one, the party’s old guard was replaced, leaving the GOP remade in Trump’s image.
But Trump’s consolidation of the GOP is only half the story. His political rise has also reordered the map of American politics in ways that continue to haunt Democrats. According to a New York Times analysis, Trump improved Republican margins in nearly half of U.S. counties across his three presidential campaigns—1,433 in all—while Democrats gained ground in just 57.
The Democrats’ Mamdani Dilemma
Mamdani’s primary upset in New York reflects a similar shift on the left. His platform—rent freezes, city-owned grocer stores, free bus service, steep taxes on the wealthy—was more blueprint than compromise. His backers are not looking for a manager; they want a revolution.
And the numbers show their enthusiasm. In the June primary, Mamdani defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo by 12 percentage points, earning 56.4 percent of the final round of ranked-choice votes to Cuomo’s 43.6 percent—a decisive victory for an underdog few expected to win.
But the Democratic establishment has kept him at arm’s length, despite polls showing Mamdani likely to win the general election in November. Weeks after his win, half of the state’s top Democrats still hadn’t endorsed him. Governor Kathy Hochul, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have all stayed silent—often mumbling through media appearances when pressed on the subject.
At “Brooklyn Against Trump” Event, Zohran Mamdani and Brooklyn Leaders Call Out Trump and Cuomo as Architects of Housing CrisisBrooklyn Against Trump At “Brooklyn Against Trump” Event, Zohran Mamdani and Brooklyn Leaders Call Out Trump and Cuomo as Architects of Housing CrisisBrooklyn Against Trump Zohran Mamdani for NYC/YouTube
“It is pathetic,” said former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau during a recent episode of Pod Save America, the popular liberal podcast. “Donald Trump’s going to try to get Eric Adams out of the race so that he can help Andrew Cuomo. Meanwhile, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have not yet endorsed the candidate who won the Democratic primary in New York City—the choice of Democratic voters,” he added.
For some on the left, dissatisfaction with Democratic leadership has reignited a longstanding debate about the party’s future. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has even suggested that progressives consider running as independents rather than as Democrats.
“If there’s any hope for the Democratic Party, it is that they’re going to have to reach out—open the doors and let working-class people in,” Sanders said during his “Stopping Oligarchy” tour, a five-city rally alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aimed at mobilizing resistance to Trump, Elon Musk, and what they describe as a billionaire-led assault on American government.
“If not, people will be running as independents, I think, all over this country.”
“We’re seeing Democrats in New York who want to flip the tables over, much like Republicans did in their Tea Party moment,” Madrid, the political analyst, told Newsweek. “Voters seem to be asking their politicians to take a stand and adopt clear positions, and I think one of the reasons the Democratic campaign lost last year was because the positions weren’t clear enough.”
Can the Center Hold?
Not all centrists are fading. But they no longer sell themselves. Survival now depends less on policy and more on posture. Candidates who look like fighters—even if their actual politics are relatively moderate—are the ones breaking through.
In Arizona, Senator Ruben Gallego offered a glimpse of what that looks like. Running in a state Donald Trump carried, Gallego didn’t try to tiptoe around culture wars or triangulate. He leaned into toughness, telling voters he would fight for wages, affordability, and border security while refusing to get pulled into debates over “masculinity” that have roiled both parties.
Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., arrives for a vote in the Capitol on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., arrives for a vote in the Capitol on Tuesday, May 13, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
“A lot of times we forget that we still need men to vote for us. That’s how we still win elections. But we don’t really talk about making the lives of men better, working to make sure that they have wages so they can support their families,” Gallego said in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times Magazine.
“He’s not playing both sides,” Madrid told Newsweek. “He’s saying: I’ll go fight and I’ll come home with results. People see that. They want that posture. His win showed that even in red states, a Democrat could compete if they looked like someone ready to brawl for ordinary people.”
The same instinct is showing up elsewhere. California Governor Gavin Newsom, once accused of hedging or “fence sitting,” on divisive issues, has adopted a more aggressive style in his battles with Trump, boosting his standing in Democratic primaries. Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders still draw crowds because they fight visibly.
“The lesson for Democrats is to stop talking only to their base,” Madrid said. “You can have politicians in the very center of the party like Gallego or on the far left like Mamdani, and both are succeeding right now.”
Klink, the veteran GOP strategist, also warned that moderation without fire simply doesn’t cut through anymore. “Generally, Democrats fare better when they nominate a moderate candidate,” he said. “But the base decides the pace. Moderates decide the margin. Without base energy—without fight and authenticity—you’re invisible.”
While Democrats are still grappling with whether to embrace the party’s more radical flank or hold to the center, the picture inside the GOP is far clearer. Trump has already answered the question for Republicans: the path to power runs through him. Where Democrats debate strategy and identity, Republicans measure their future in degrees of loyalty to the president.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (L) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (R) take an elevator just off the Senate floor after the Senate stayed in session throughout the night at the U.S. Capitol Building on July… Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) (L) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (R) take an elevator just off the Senate floor after the Senate stayed in session throughout the night at the U.S. Capitol Building on July 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
A CBS News/YouGov survey found that 65 percent of Republican voters say loyalty to Trump is important, with more than a third calling it “very important.” In practice, that has meant dissenters often retreat when it matters. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has voiced concerns about Trump’s hold on the party but still voted for his signature “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia briefly criticized the package, then fell back in line to support it.
After months of friction with the White House, Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Don Bacon announced their retirements rather than continue testing their luck in a party where deviation is punished and loyalty is prized. In today’s Trumpist party, such departures have become increasingly rare — simply because so few dissenters remain.
Not only is it fresh and delicious – it is a pioneering cocktail
When you are deciding on a drink, you have plenty of options, but the cool backstory to this cocktail can make you want to have a sip. When you order a Hanky Panky, you’re not just enjoying a balanced blend of gin, sweet vermouth, and Fernet-Branca—you’re tasting a slice of cocktail history shaped by one of the most important women in bartending: Ada “Coley” Coleman.
The Hanky Panky was created in the early 1900s at London’s iconic Savoy Hotel, a glamorous destination for high society and global trendsetters. Coleman, who began her bartending career in the 1890s, eventually rose to become head bartender at the Savoy’s American Bar. The appointment made her one of the very first female bartenders in a luxury establishment—a groundbreaking achievement at a time when cocktail culture was still a male-dominated world.
The story goes the Hanky Panky was invented for Sir Charles Hawtrey, a well-known actor of the time. He wanted something “with a bit of punch,” so Coleman went back to her mixing glass. She experimented with flavors until she hit on a mix of gin, vermouth, and a dash of Fernet-Branca, an Italian amaro known for its bitter and herbal complexity. When Hawtrey tried it, he exclaimed, “By Jove! That’s the real hanky panky!” The name stuck—and so did the cocktail.
Unlike sweeter drinks of the era, the Hanky Panky delivered layers of intrigue. The gin’s crispness mingled with the vermouth’s rounded sweetness, while the Fernet added a bitter, bracing edge making it feel daring and modern. For cocktail fans today—especially Millennials and Gen Z who love a craft experience—the drink hits a sweet spot of being both vintage and refreshingly different.
Classic Hanky Panky Recipe
Ingredients
1 ½ oz London Dry gin
1 ½ oz sweet vermouth
2 dashes Fernet-Branca
Create
Fill a mixing glass with ice
Add gin, sweet vermouth, and Fernet-Branca
Stir until well chilled
Strain into a chilled coupe glass
Garnish with an orange twist
This simple three-ingredient recipe captures Ada Coleman’s original creation—a timeless balance of bold, bitter, and smooth.
But beyond the glass, the Hanky Panky represents a milestone in hospitality history. Coleman wasn’t just a novelty behind the bar—she was a star mixologist who built a loyal following of celebrities, artists, and royals. She paved the way for generations of women to be seen not only as bartenders but as innovators and tastemakers in the cocktail world.
Today, the Hanky Panky enjoys a comeback in speakeasies, craft cocktail lounges, and even TikTok recipe videos. Young drinkers are rediscovering classic cocktails with personality, and this one delivers both flavor and a feminist backstory. Ordering it isn’t just about enjoying a drink—it’s about raising a glass to the woman who made history by refusing to be boxed in.
So next time you see a Hanky Panky on the menu, try one. You’ll be tasting more than just a cocktail—you’ll be celebrating Ada Coleman’s legacy, one sip at a time.
Texas Republican lawmakers on Wednesday evening adopted a package of sharper penalties and new fundraising restrictions for members who leave the state to freeze legislative action, in a bid to deter future standoffs like what ensued when House Democrats absconded last month to delay passage of a new congressional map.
The array of new punishments includes a proposal to severely curtail how much lawmakers can fundraise should they leave Texas to deny their chamber the headcount required to conduct business. Under House Bill 18, absent members and their legislative caucuses will be prohibited from accepting daily political contributions beyond their per diem allocation — currently $221 a day, as set by the Texas Ethics Commission — and barred from spending any campaign cash on travel, food or lodging related to their out-of-state trip.
The measure passed the lower chamber Tuesday and was whisked through the Senate and on to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk late just after midnight Thursday.
Meanwhile, the Texas House also adopted new rules Wednesday that impose a handful of harsher punishments for lawmakers who break quorum, including erasing two years of legislative seniority for each day lawmakers are absent, starting after they miss three consecutive days of legislative business. The changes also include higher daily fines for lawmakers who flee the state and a new provision stripping them of committee leadership appointments.
The new rules are largely symbolic and aimed squarely at future quorum breaks, as Democrats have returned from their August protest against congressional redistricting. And the Legislature already passed the reconfigured map — ordered by President Donald Trump to secure the GOP more seats in the U.S. House — which was recently signed into law by Abbott and now faces legal challenges.
House members adopt rules anew at the beginning of each regular session on odd-numbered years. After Democrats left the state to delay a package of GOP voting restrictions in 2021, the House held off on updating the rules until 2023, by which time tensions had mellowed out.
House GOP hardliners for weeks urged state leaders to castigate Democrats for what they characterize as an abandonment of their duties, though the state Constitution permits quorum breaks.
“I think these penalties are reasonable,” Rep. Cody Vasut of Angleton, the rules package author, said Wednesday night. “I think they are strong to help deter a future quorum break.”
The calls for retribution were answered in short order. After Democrats returned and the House approved the new district lines, Abbott — who decides which topics can be considered during special sessions — expanded his agenda, giving lawmakers permission to enact the stiffer penalties.
Such legislation was needed, Abbott said at the time, “to ensure that rogue lawmakers cannot hijack the important business of Texans.”
On the House floor this week, Republican Rep. Matt Shaheen of Plano, the author of the fundraising restriction bill, argued that current law creates a financial incentive for members to protest with their absence, pointing to fundraising efforts touting the Democrats’ departure.
Democrats cast the penalties — particularly the new House rules — as vindictive and unnecessarily punitive.
In opposition speeches, they noted the “outside influences” — nodding to Vasut’s wording — that nudged the GOP into mid-decade redistricting. Some struck a defiant tone, arguing that voters could kick them out of office at the polls if they disapproved of their quorum breaking.
“When politicians change the rules of the game, it’s because they know they’re losing,” Houston Rep. Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus leader, said in a statement. “By breaking quorum, we exposed the corrupt deal between Trump and Abbott to rig Texas’ congressional maps, and turned it into a national movement.”
The fundraising clampdown sailed through the GOP-dominated Senate, though some Republicans who supported the measure said it would not solve the issue at hand, bemoaning that it stopped short of the upper chamber’s more aggressive approach of barring lawmakers from fundraising altogether during special sessions. That moratorium is already in place for the Legislature’s 140-day regular sessions that take place every other year.
During a Senate committee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, noted that quorum breaks generally do not happen on the spur of the moment and instead are preceded by weeks of chatter and planning, during which it will still be legal for lawmakers to raise money. Hall ultimately voted to advance the measure as part of a 9-1 committee vote.
More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year’s lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of “CNN NewsNight”; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today!
The military and marijuana have had a long history – now members of the GOP are trying to help the services with a change
From Vietnam to PTSD, marijuana has been part of the armed services. Traditionalists have waged war on the green plant, but now there is unexpected cannabis help for the military. As recruitment numbers continue to shrink, a wave of Republican lawmakers are championing bold reforms to modernize military enlistment—starting with cannabis policy. Their aim? Make the armed forces more accessible to young Americans who’ve legally used marijuana in their daily lives.
At the center of this push is Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who introduced an amendment to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would ban marijuana testing for enlistment or officer commissioning. Gaetz argues prior cannabis use should not exclude willing Americans from serving their country, especially amid a recruitment and retention crisis. Nearly 33% more recruits tested positive for marijuana in 2022 compared to 2020. Gaetz has long been one of Congress’s most vocal supporters of cannabis reform, frequently backing measures to decriminalize or normalize its use on both state and federal levels.
Photo by skeeze via Pixabay
This isn’t Gaetz’s only effort: other GOP lawmakers are pushing parallel reforms. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) proposed allowing service members to use federally legal CBD products, while the Congressional Cannabis Caucus—co-chaired by R and D members—has introduced amendments to empower VA doctors to advise medical cannabis treatment for veterans in legal states.
Meanwhile, the House Armed Services Committee, led by Republicans, advanced a medical cannabis “pilot program” amendment authored by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-Texas). This program would allow the Department of Defense to study cannabis’s health effects on veterans with PTSD, depression, and pain—alongside psychedelics research like MDMA and psilocybin trials.
Why now? With medical marijuana legal in 38 states and recreational use legal in 24, many potential recruits are being filtered out by outdated drug policies—despite evidence those granted waivers perform on par with other soldiers.
On Reddit, the sentiment is candid:
“This proposed change would eliminate marijuana testing at time of enlistment/commissioning. Seems like a reasonable change to help recruiting.”
For millennials who’ve grown up in a patchwork of legalization, these reforms feel sensible, overdue, and inclusive—a recalibration of military policy to reflect modern societal norms.
Still, it’s worth noting: none of these proposals are yet law. While some reforms have advanced in committee, they haven’t all made it to the House floor, let alone passed both chambers.
In sum, a growing cohort of GOP lawmakers is signaling prior use of cannabis should not disqualify military service, flipping the script on recruitment rules and embracing a more inclusive future.
The Trump administration’s cuts to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding for state and local health departments had vastly uneven effects depending on the political leanings of a state, according to a KFF Health News analysis. Democratic-led states and select blue-leaning cities fought back in court and saw money for public health efforts restored — while GOP-led states sustained big losses.
The Department of Health and Human Services in late March canceled nearly 700 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants nationwide — together worth about $11 billion. Awarded during the covid-19 pandemic, they supported efforts to vaccinate people, reduce health disparities among demographic groups, upgrade antiquated systems for detecting infectious disease outbreaks, and hire community health workers.
Initially, grant cancellations hit blue and red states roughly evenly. Four of the five jurisdictions with the largest number of terminated grants were led by Democrats: California, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
But after attorneys general and governors from about two dozen blue states sued in federal court and won an injunction, the balance flipped. Of the five states with the most canceled grants, four are led by Republicans: Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Ohio.
In blue states, nearly 80% of the CDC grant cuts have been restored, compared with fewer than 5% in red states, according to the KFF Health News analysis. Grant amounts reported in an HHS database known as the Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System, or TAGGS, often don’t match what states confirmed. Instead, this analysis focused on the number of grants.
The divide is an example of the polarization that permeates health care issues, in which access to safety-net health programs, abortion rights, and the ability of public health officials to respond to disease threats diverge significantly depending on the political party in power.
In an emailed statement, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency “is committed to protecting the health of every American, regardless of politics or geography. These funds were provided in response to the COVID pandemic, which is long over. We will continue working with states to strengthen public health infrastructure and ensure communities have the tools they need to respond to outbreaks and keep people safe.”
The money in question wasn’t spent solely on covid-related activities, public health experts say; it was also used to bolster public health infrastructure and help contain many types of viruses and diseases, including the flu, measles, and RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus.
“It really supported infrastructure across the board, particularly in how states respond to public health threats,” said Susan Kansagra, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
The Trump cutbacks came as the U.S. recorded its largest measles outbreak in over three decades and 266 pediatric deaths during the most recent flu season — the highest reported outside of a pandemic since 2004. Public health departments canceled vaccine clinics, laid off staff, and put contracts on hold, health officials said in interviews.
After its funding cuts were blocked in court, California retained every grant the Trump administration attempted to claw back, while Texas remains the state with the most grants terminated, with at least 30. As the CDC slashed grants in Texas, its measles outbreak spread across the U.S. and Mexico, sickening at least 4,500 people and killing at least 16.
Colorado, which joined the lawsuit, had 11 grant terminations at first, but then 10 were retained. Meanwhile, its neighboring states that didn’t sue — Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma — collectively lost 55 grants, with none retained.
In Jackson, Ohio, a half-dozen community health workers came to work one day in March to find the Trump administration had canceled their grant five months early, leaving the Jackson County Health Department half a million dollars short — and them without jobs.
“I had to lay off three employees in a single day, and I haven’t had to do that before. We don’t have those people doing outreach in Jackson County anymore,” Health Commissioner Kevin Aston said.
At one point, he said, the funding helped 11 Appalachian Ohio counties. Now it supports one.
Marsha Radabaugh, one employee who was reassigned, has scaled back her community health efforts: She’d been helping serve hot meals to homeless people and realized that many clients couldn’t read or write, so she brought forms for services such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to their encampment in a local park and helped fill them out.
“We would find them rehab places. We’d get out hygiene kits, blankets, tents, zero-degree sleeping bags, things like that,” she said. As a counselor, she’d also remind people “that they’re cared for, that they’re worthy of being a human — because, a lot of the time, they’re not treated that way.”
Sasha Johnson, who led the community health worker program, said people like Radabaugh “were basically a walking human 411,” offering aid to those in need.
Radabaugh also partnered with a food bank to deliver meals to homebound residents.
Aston said the abrupt way they lost the funds — which meant the county unexpectedly had to pay unemployment for more people — could have ruined the health district financially. Canceling funding midcycle, he said, “was really scary.”
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist and promoter of vaccine misinformation, has called the CDC a “cesspool of corruption.” At HHS, he has taken steps to undermine vaccination in the U.S. and abroad.
Federal CDC funding accounts for more than half of state and local health department budgets, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. States that President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election received a higher share of the $15 billion the CDC allocated in fiscal 2023 than those that Democrat Kamala Harris won, according to KFF.
The Trump administration’s nationwide CDC grant terminations reflect this. More than half were in states that Trump won in 2024, totaling at least 370 terminations before the court action, according to KFF Health News’ analysis.
The Columbus, Ohio, health department had received $6.2 million in CDC grants, but roughly half of it — $3 million — disappeared with the Trump cuts. The city laid off 11 people who worked on investigating infectious disease outbreaks in such places as schools and nursing homes, Columbus Health Commissioner Mysheika Roberts said.
She also said the city had planned to buy a new electronic health record system for easier access to patients’ hospital records — which could improve disease detection and provide better treatment for those infected — but that was put on ice.
“We’ve never had a grant midcycle just get pulled from us for no reason,” Roberts said. “This sense of uncertainty is stressful.”
Columbus did not receive its money directly from the CDC. Rather, the state gave the city some funds it received from the federal government. Ohio, led by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and a Republican attorney general, did not sue to block the funding cuts.
Columbus sued the federal government in April to keep its money, along with other Democratic-led municipalities in Republican-governed states: Harris County, Texas, home to Houston; the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in Tennessee; and Kansas City, Missouri. A federal judge in June blocked those cuts.
As of mid-August, Columbus was awaiting the funds. Roberts said the city won’t rehire staff because the federal funding was expected to end in December.
Joe Grogan, a senior scholar at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Institute and former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council in Trump’s first term, said state and local agencies “are not entitled” to the federal money, which was awarded “to deal with an emergency” that has ended.
“We were throwing money out the door the last five years,” Grogan said of the federal government. “I don’t understand why there would ever be a controversy in unspent covid money coming back.”
Ken Gordon, Ohio Department of Health spokesperson, wrote in an email that the $250 million in grants lost had helped with, among other things, upgrading the disease reporting system and boosting public health laboratory testing.
Some of the canceled HHS funding wasn’t slated to end for years, including four grants to strengthen public health in Indian Country, a grant to a Minnesota nonprofit focused on reducing substance use disorders, and a few to universities about occupational safety, HIV, tuberculosis, and more.
Brent Ewig, chief policy and government relations officer for the Association of Immunization Managers, said the cuts were “the predictable result of ‘boom, bust, panic, neglect’ funding” for public health.
The association represents 64 state, local, and territorial immunization programs, which Ewig said will be less prepared to respond to disease outbreaks, including measles.
“The system is blinking red,” Ewig said.
Methodology
KFF Health News’ analysis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants sought to answer four questions: 1) How many grants have been terminated in the U.S. under the Trump administration since March? 2) Which states saw the most grants cut? 3) What were the grants for? and 4) Did the grant terminations affect blue, red, and purple states differently? This follows a similar analysis by KFF Health News for an article on nationwide NIH grant terminations.
Our primary data source was a Department of Health and Human Services website showing grant terminations. We compared an initial list of grant terminations from April 3 with one from July 11 to determine how many grants had been restored. The USAspending.gov database helped us track grants by state.
To classify states politically, we followed the same steps from our April coverage of National Institutes of Health grant terminations. States were “blue” if Democrats had complete control of the state government or if the majority of voters favored Democratic presidential candidates in the last three elections (2016, 2020, 2024). “Red” states were classified similarly with respect to the Republican Party. “Purple” states had politically split state governments and/or were generally considered to be presidential election battleground states. The result was 25 red states, 17 blue states, and eight purple states. The District of Columbia was classified as blue using similar methods.
This analysis does not account for potential grant reinstatements in local jurisdictions where the funds were awarded indirectly rather than directly from the CDC; it accounts only for the recipients’ location, and excludes grants terminated from Compacts of Free Association states and other foreign entities that received grants directly from the CDC. At least 40 CDC grants were terminated that were meant for global health efforts or assisting public health activities in other nations following the Trump administration’s order for the CDC to withdraw support for the World Health Organization.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Related
[ad_2]
Henry Larweh, Rachana Pradhan, Rae Ellen Bichell and KFF Health News
Republicans are calling for 35 inland counties to secede from California and create a new state.
The GOP announced the plan Wednesday as their response to Democrats’ congressional redistricting efforts.
“I want to take a step back from all of the chaos we had and talk about the forgotten people of California,” Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher said, presenting a map during a news conference in Sacramento.
Gallagher and his co-authors are proposing Assembly Joint Resolution 23, also known as “The Two State Solution.” It would allow the creation of the state under Article, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution and would require approval by the state Assembly and Senate as well as Congress. Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, meaning Republicans would have to sway a number of Democrats to back it.
Gallagher said a new state would benefit inland residents who feel they’re victims of the policies of the Democrats controlling the state legislative and executive branches.
“I think this is about the trucker in the Inland Empire who is told he has to get rid of his truck because of the regulations in this state,” the minority leader said.
“I think of the single mom who’s trying to get by when the rent’s too high and gets her PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) bill, which once again is increased, and struggles to get into that first house because costs are way too high,” Gallager said.
He said he was thinking of ranchers whose cattle are killed “because some genius thought it was a good idea to reintroduce the gray wolf in Northern California.”
It’s time to secede from California because of a Legislature that has done nothing to make the state more affordable, Gallagher said, accusing the Democratic supermajorities in the two houses of not caring about Californians.
Proposition 50, which would draw new congressional district boundaries to give Democrats five more U.S. House seats to counter five Republican seats being gained by Texas redistricting, would completely strip people in inland counties of their representation, Gallager said. The Senate and Assembly voted last week to put the proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot in a special election.
“Whether you are from the North State, Central Valley or the Inland Empire, life has become harder and completely unaffordable,” Gallagher said. “We have been overlooked for far too long, and now they are trying to rip away what little representation we have left.”
The new state would consist of 10 million people, according to Gallagher’s office. It would cover most of Northern California, the Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley and the Inland Empire.
The proposal would leave counties along the coast in California. The new state would consist of a big north-to-south block of Inland counties, varying from Siskiyou, Modoc and Del Norte along the Oregon border to Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial in Southern California.
Gallagher said he realizes there are people in heavily Republican Orange County, which would remain in California under the current proposal, who would like to be a new state.
“Orange County, I hear you,” Gallagher said, stressing the map isn’t set in a stone and that some communities in the current proposal might not want to be in a new state.
Gallagher’s proposed resolution noted there have been “difficulties in achieving equitable political representation” and that efforts to divide California go back to 1859 when voters overwhelmingly supported splitting the state into two. “However, Congress did not act on this proposal due to the Civil War.”
The resolution said several Northern California counties, along with voters from other counties, have expressed a desire to form a new state. It said residents in Northern California and Inland areas have long felt frustration over laws and regulations imposed on them by the more populous coastal regions.
Republican co-authors of Gallagher’s resolution are Assemblymembers Leticia Castillo, Heather Hadwick, Tom Lackey, Alexandra Macedo, Joe Patterson and Kate Sanchez. Sen. Megan Dahle is the co-author in the Senate.
The Utah Legislature will need to rapidly redraw the state’s congressional boundaries after a judge ruled Monday that the Republican-controlled body circumvented safeguards put in place by voters to ensure districts aren’t drawn to favor any party.Related video above — Get the Facts: Redistricting or Gerrymandering? The current map, drawn in 2021, divides Salt Lake County — the state’s population center and a Democratic stronghold — among the state’s four congressional districts, all of which have since elected Republicans by wide margins.District Court Judge Dianna Gibson made few judgments on the content of the map but declared it unlawful because lawmakers had weakened and ignored an independent commission established by voters to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The nature of the violation lies in “the Legislature’s refusal to respect the people’s exercise of their constitutional lawmaking power and to honor the people’s right to reform their government,” Gibson said in her ruling.New maps will need to be drawn quickly for the 2026 midterm elections. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top elections official, asked the courts for the case to be finalized by November to leave time for the process before candidates start filing in early January. But appeals promised by Republican lawmakers could help them run out the clock to possibly delay adopting new maps until 2028.The ruling creates uncertainty in a state that was thought to be a clean sweep for the GOP as the party is preparing to defend its slim majority in the U.S. House. Nationally, Democrats need to net three seats next year to take control of the chamber. The sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms, as was the case for President Donald Trump in 2018.Trump has urged several Republican-led states to add winnable seats for the GOP. In Texas, a plan awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval includes five new districts that would favor Republicans. Ohio Republicans already were scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan, and Indiana, Florida and Missouri may choose to make changes. Some Democrat-led states say they may enter the redistricting battle, but so far only California has taken action to offset GOP gains in Texas.
The Utah Legislature will need to rapidly redraw the state’s congressional boundaries after a judge ruled Monday that the Republican-controlled body circumvented safeguards put in place by voters to ensure districts aren’t drawn to favor any party.
Related video above — Get the Facts: Redistricting or Gerrymandering?
The current map, drawn in 2021, divides Salt Lake County — the state’s population center and a Democratic stronghold — among the state’s four congressional districts, all of which have since elected Republicans by wide margins.
District Court Judge Dianna Gibson made few judgments on the content of the map but declared it unlawful because lawmakers had weakened and ignored an independent commission established by voters to prevent partisan gerrymandering. The nature of the violation lies in “the Legislature’s refusal to respect the people’s exercise of their constitutional lawmaking power and to honor the people’s right to reform their government,” Gibson said in her ruling.
New maps will need to be drawn quickly for the 2026 midterm elections. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, the state’s top elections official, asked the courts for the case to be finalized by November to leave time for the process before candidates start filing in early January. But appeals promised by Republican lawmakers could help them run out the clock to possibly delay adopting new maps until 2028.
The ruling creates uncertainty in a state that was thought to be a clean sweep for the GOP as the party is preparing to defend its slim majority in the U.S. House. Nationally, Democrats need to net three seats next year to take control of the chamber. The sitting president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms, as was the case for President Donald Trump in 2018.
Trump has urged several Republican-led states to add winnable seats for the GOP. In Texas, a plan awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval includes five new districts that would favor Republicans. Ohio Republicans already were scheduled to revise their maps to make them more partisan, and Indiana, Florida and Missouri may choose to make changes. Some Democrat-led states say they may enter the redistricting battle, but so far only California has taken action to offset GOP gains in Texas.
Texas Republicans approved a new, aggressively gerrymandered congressional map early Saturday morning, moving forward with a power grab pushed by President Donald Trump.
The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the map on a party-line vote after hours of debate that began Friday morning. Republicans used a procedural move to block a Democratic senator’s plans to filibuster the bill, forcing it to a vote — one final show of force from GOP leadership after weeks of partisan fighting.
The map could ultimately help flip as many as five seats for the GOP starting with next year’s midterms. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is set to quickly sign the legislation, capping off a turbulent few weeks in Texas over Republicans’ now-successful effort to further skew the maps in the GOP’s favor ahead of the 2030 census.
Under the new map, Republicans in Texas are aiming to earn 30 House seats — up from their current 25 — as they attempt to hold onto control of the chamber in what could be an unfavorable environment for them next year. Republicans currently have just a three-seat majority in the House, so the new Texas map alone will significantly affect their chances.
The unusual offcycle redistricting effort in Texas has set off a contentious national tit-for-tat. California formally launched its preemptive retaliation on Thursday, with lawmakers approving a ballot measure redrawing the state’s map to create five new Democratic seats to offset Texas. That measure —which would temporarily circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission — now goes to voters on the November ballot, a gerrymander Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has cast as necessary to preserve democracy.
But Republicans could soon have the advantage as a redistricting battle escalates nationwide: The White House is pressuring other GOP states, like Indiana and Missouri, to take on their own redistricting gambits. Democratic governors in New York and Illinois have vowed to fight back, but have so far taken no concrete steps to do so.
Democrats and civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the legality of the map, and will likely argue that Republicans unlawfully took race into consideration when redrawing the lines.
Republicans, however, contend that they redrew the districts explicitly for partisan purposes and did not account for race or ethnicity.
Racial gerrymandering claims are one of the last remaining ways to challenge a political map in federal court, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 barred them from policing partisan gerrymandering. The new map – which was drawn using 2024 election data – creates four new majority-Hispanic districts, drawn to reflect Hispanic voters’ shift toward the GOP.
Texas House Democrats protested the maps by leaving the state for two weeks, depriving Republicans of the ability to conduct legislative business. Those lawmakers returned on Monday — clearing the way for Republicans to quickly pass the legislation. Democrats racked up thousands of dollars in fines for ducking their legislative duties, and when they returned, House Speaker Dustin Burrows sought one last punishment: He ordered law enforcement to chaperone the Democrats to ensure they would be present for passage of the map.
One Democrat, state Rep. Nicole Collier, refused to sign a permission slip allowing an officer to monitor her movements, instead staging a three-day sit-in on the House floor.
“When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents — I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination,” Collier said from the chamber.
The Senate passed its map on Saturday morning after thwarting an attempted filibuster from another Democrat who planned to stage one last protest against the legislation. But Republicans made a procedural move that ended debate and the chamber approved the map along party lines.
WASHINGTON, January 23, 2025 (Newswire.com)
– Proposed federal healthcare budget cuts, aimed at achieving over $3 trillion in savings, are poised to create significant disruptions within the healthcare IT sector. Recent federal actions, including an executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the rollback of drug pricing reforms, have compounded challenges for healthcare providers and IT vendors. These findings are part of an in-depth Q1 2025 Black Book Research survey conducted with 110 IT leaders from provider health systems and physician organizations, 33 payer IT professionals, and 162 healthcare IT software and managed services vendors, including 108 firms specializing in Revenue Cycle Management (RCM). The survey sheds light on operational challenges, innovation opportunities, and strategic shifts required to adapt to these sweeping changes.
Key Findings
IT Overhauls Required for Medicaid and Medicare Changes: 91% of IT leaders reported that significant system reconfigurations are necessary to accommodate Medicaid’s transition to a per capita cap model and new reimbursement structures. Respondents highlighted challenges in updating IT systems for revised billing, eligibility tracking, and payment models driven by federal healthcare reforms.
Rising Demand for Cost-Efficiency in RCM and Analytics: 83% of healthcare IT users indicated that maximizing reimbursements and managing financial risk would require a greater reliance on advanced RCM and analytics technologies. Proposed cuts to uncompensated care funding and site-neutral payments are accelerating demand for these cost-efficiency tools.
Telehealth and Digital Health Growth at Risk: 68% of IT executives expressed concern that reduced financial incentives could hinder the expansion of telehealth and remote monitoring capabilities, especially in rural and underserved communities. Cuts targeting telehealth and facility fees are viewed as significant barriers to digital health growth.
Compliance and Administrative Complexity: 88% of respondents emphasized the urgent need for integrated IT systems to manage compliance processes, including new Medicaid work requirements and eligibility tracking. Administrative burdens are expected to rise, creating demand for seamless IT integration.
Cybersecurity as a Priority Amid Budget Constraints: The urgency of cybersecurity tools stems from the heightened risk of cyberattacks targeting healthcare systems, compounded by the sector’s increased reliance on IT to manage compliance and operational complexities. As federal budget cuts create financial constraints, nearly two-thirds of respondents prioritized scalable and cost-effective cybersecurity solutions to protect sensitive healthcare data. Vendors are focusing on deploying AI-driven threat detection systems, offering managed security services for resource-limited organizations, and ensuring compliance with HIPAA, GDPR, and other regulatory requirements. The emphasis on cybersecurity reflects its critical role in maintaining resilience and safeguarding patient trust during this period of uncertainty.
Strategic Shifts for IT Vendors: 39% of vendor executives are focusing on cost-saving solutions, including cloud-based infrastructure, integrated RCM tools, and AI-powered analytics to meet evolving client needs.
Federal Actions Compounding Healthcare IT Challenges
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), potentially disrupting global health initiatives and data sharing critical to healthcare providers and IT vendors. Additionally, the administration has rescinded healthcare directives from the previous administration, including capping generic medication copayments at $2 and reducing payments for FDA-approved drugs, affecting cost structures for providers and patients.
Doug Brown, Founder of Black Book Research, stated, “Healthcare providers and IT vendors are preparing for the wide-reaching implications of these budget cuts and policy changes. While cost reductions may provide short-term savings, they also pose significant risks to innovation, operational efficiency, and patient care. Vendors will play a crucial role in helping organizations navigate these challenges with adaptable, cost-effective solutions.”
Opportunities for Resilience and Innovation
The survey results highlight critical opportunities for healthcare IT vendors to:
Support compliance with integrated solutions that simplify administrative processes: Integrated IT systems designed to streamline compliance management, such as tracking Medicaid work requirements, eligibility, and regulatory reporting, are in high demand. Vendors capable of delivering scalable solutions will be instrumental in reducing administrative burdens for healthcare providers adapting to new federal policies.
Enhance financial efficiency through advanced RCM and analytics platforms: With seven in ten surveyed organizations identifying financial efficiency as a top priority, vendors specializing in Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) are positioned for growth. Key focus areas include:
Automating billing processes to accommodate new reimbursement models.
Providing predictive analytics tools that enable providers to optimize revenue streams and mitigate financial risks.
Delivering cost-efficient RCM solutions tailored for small and mid-sized practices, which are often disproportionately affected by budget cuts.
RCM firms are actively investing in AI-driven tools that can adapt to dynamic billing requirements while enhancing payment accuracy.
Prioritize cybersecurity to protect sensitive data amidst rising cyber threats: As the healthcare sector faces increasing cyberattacks, nearly two-thirds of respondents emphasized cybersecurity as a critical priority, despite financial constraints. Managed service vendors specializing in healthcare cybersecurity are developing scalable, cost-effective solutions to address these threats. Key cybersecurity measures include:
Deploying AI-driven threat detection systems to identify vulnerabilities in real-time.
Offering managed security services that cater to organizations with limited in-house IT resources.
Ensuring compliance with HIPAA, GDPR, and other regulatory requirements through comprehensive security frameworks.
____________________
Healthcare technology and software companies with specific product focuses have significant opportunities to respond to the challenges and demands outlined in the press release. Below are the types of companies and examples of product categories they can address effectively:
Revenue Cycle Management (RCM) Software Companies
Opportunity: These companies can deliver advanced billing automation, predictive analytics, and cost-efficient tools to help providers optimize financial performance amidst budget cuts.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for RCM Software: Waystar, FInThrive, Experian Health, Veradigm, Optum, Conifer Health Solutions
Cybersecurity and Managed Security Service Providers
Opportunity: The growing threat of cyberattacks and regulatory complexities require companies offering scalable, AI-driven threat detection, and managed cybersecurity services to help healthcare organizations mitigate risks.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Cybersecurity Managed Services Providers: Clearwater, Fortified Health Security, Trustwave
__________________
Integrated IT and Compliance Solutions
Opportunity: Vendors offering IT systems that integrate compliance tracking for Medicaid work requirements and regulatory reporting can alleviate administrative burdens.
Opportunity: Companies focusing on telehealth and remote monitoring solutions can address underserved communities’ needs and counteract challenges arising from reduced financial incentives.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Telehealth Platforms: Amwell, Doximity, VSee Health
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Remote Monitoring: Andor Health, BioTelemetry (Philips), Vivify Health
________________
Analytics and Data Platforms
Opportunity: Advanced analytics tools that support financial efficiency, population health management, and operational insights are crucial for organizations adapting to new federal policies.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Healthcare Analytics: Health Catalyst, Arcadia, MedeAnalytics
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Predictive Analytics for RCM: Optum360, IBM Watson, Inovalon
___________________
Cloud Infrastructure and Interoperability Solutions
Opportunity: Vendors specializing in cloud-based infrastructures and seamless interoperability solutions can support cost-saving measures and enable effective data exchange across systems.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Cloud Providers: AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Interoperability Solutions: Infor, InterSystems, Redox.
__________________
Population Health and Value-Based Care Platforms
Opportunity: Companies providing platforms for population health management and value-based care transitions can help providers meet new reimbursement model requirements.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Population Health Solutions: Lumeris, Innovaccer
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Value-Based Care Platforms: Mahalo Health, CareAllies, Premier Inc, HealthEC
2025 Top-Rated Advisory Firms for Value-Based Care Transitions: CareAllies, Premier Inc
____________________
AI-Driven Clinical and Operational Tools
Opportunity: AI-powered tools can streamline clinical workflows, optimize patient care, and reduce administrative burdens, aligning with providers’ cost-saving goals.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Clinical Decision Support: IBM Watson Health, Nuance (Microsoft), Oracle Cerner, TruBridge
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Workflow Optimization: Qventus, MedEvolve, PerfectServe, LeanTaaS
___________________
Digital Health and Patient Engagement Tools
Opportunity: Companies offering patient engagement platforms and digital health tools can address gaps in care delivery and patient satisfaction as funding pressures rise.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Engagement Tools: Intellichart, Salesforce Health Cloud, Kyruus
Opportunity: With small and mid-sized practices disproportionately affected, vendors providing tailored, affordable solutions can fill critical gaps.
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for Practice Management and RCM: NextGen Healthcare, RXNT, Veradigm
2025 Top-Rated Vendors for EHRs for Small Practices: ModMed, Practice Fusion.
___________________
Strategic Reimbursement and RCM Advisory/Consulting Services
Opportunity: The GOP healthcare budget cuts present opportunities for RCM consultants and reimbursement advisory firms to help providers navigate reimbursement changes, optimize revenue cycles, and mitigate financial risks while ensuring compliance with evolving regulations.
Black Book Research is an independent market research and public opinion company specializing in healthcare IT and vendor performance. With a focus on unbiased evaluations and actionable insights, Black Book empowers healthcare organizations with data-driven strategies to navigate a rapidly evolving landscape.
Donald Trump hosted a rally featuring crude and racist insults at New York’s Madison Square Garden Sunday, turning what his campaign had dubbed as the event where he would deliver his closing message into an illustration of what turns off his critics.With just over a week before Election Day, speakers labeled Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” called Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris “the devil,” and said the woman vying to become the first woman and Black woman president had begun her career as a prostitute.Video above: Presidential candidates try to get out the vote in the last week before Election Day”I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico,” said Tony Hinchcliffe, a stand-up comic whose set also included lewd and racist comments about Latinos, Jews and Black people, all key constituencies in the election just nine days away.His joke was immediately criticized by Harris’ campaign as it competes with Trump to win over Puerto Rican communities in Pennsylvania and other swing states. Puerto Rican music superstar Bad Bunny endorsed Harris shortly after Hinchcliffe’s appearance. The normally pugnacious Trump campaign took the rare step of distancing itself from Hinchcliffe. “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” senior adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement.But other speakers also made incendiary comments. Trump’s childhood friend David Rem referred to Harris as “the Antichrist” and “the devil.” Businessman Grant Cardone told the crowd that Harris “and her pimp handlers will destroy our country.”The marquee event reflected the former president’s tone throughout his third White House campaign. Though he refrained from doing so Sunday, Trump often tears into Harris in offensive and personal terms himself, questioning in recent weeks her mental stability and her intelligence as well as calling her “lazy,” long a racist trope used against Black people. The event was a surreal spectacle that included former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, TV psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw, someone who painted a picture of Trump hugging the Empire State Building, and politicians, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. At times, it felt like an amped-up version of the Republican National Convention in July that convened two days after Trump was nearly assassinated at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, which featured many of the same personalities — this time delivering speeches with far more volume.And that was all before Trump was to take the stage, running more than two hours late.After being introduced by his wife, Melania Trump, in a rare public appearance, the former president began by asking the same questions he’s asked at the start of every recent rally: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The crowd responded with a resounding “No!””This election is a choice between whether we’ll have four more years of gross incompetence and failure, or whether we’ll begin the greatest years in the history of our country,” he said. Trump on Sunday added a new proposal to his list of tax cuts aimed at winning over older adults and blue-collar workers, which already includes vows to end taxes on Social Security benefits, tips and overtime pay: A tax credit for family caregivers.This comes after Harris has talked about the “sandwich generation” of adults caring for aging parents while raising their children at the same time. Harris has proposed federal funding to cover home care costs for older Americans.Trump otherwise repeated familiar lines about foreign policy and immigration, calling for the death penalty for any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen and saying that the day he takes office, “The migrant invasion of our country ends.”As Trump’s remarks came up on an hour, some of the crowd began trickling out. Tech mogul Elon Musk, who spoke earlier and introduced Melania Trump, was a prominent part of Trump’s closing campaign message. The former president called Musk “a genius” and “special.”Musk nodded to Trump’s recent plan to allow him to lead a government efficiency commission to audit the entire federal government. Several of Musk’s businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX, have major government contracts or have relied on U.S. subsidies, and Musk has faced criticism after reports that he spoke privately in recent years with Russian President Vladimir Putin.”Your money is being wasted and the department of government efficiency is going to fix that,” Musk said before taking a place offstage beside Melania Trump. Many of the speakers Sunday appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention. This time, the same speakers shouted and railed more against Democrats. Hogan, returning to the venue where he performed years ago as a professional wrestler, seemed to reprise his character, emerging wearing a giant red, orange and yellow boa and violently waving a large American flag as he posed and danced. He spat on the stage during his speech, flexed his muscles repeatedly and told the audience: “Trump is the only man that can fix this country today.”Some Democrats, arguing that Trump is a “fascist,” have compared his Sunday event to a pro-Nazi rally at the Garden in February 1939. Several speakers on Sunday ripped Hillary Clinton, the Democrat defeated by Trump eight years ago, for saying recently that Trump would be “reenacting” the 1939 event.”Hey guys, they’re now scrambling and trying to call us Nazis and fascists,” said Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, who draped a sparkly “MAGA” jacket over the lectern as she spoke. “And you know what they’re claiming, guys? It’s very scary. They’re claiming we’re going to go after them and try and put them in jail. Well, ain’t that rich?”Declared Hogan in his characteristic raspy growl: “I don’t see no stinkin’ Nazis in here.”Trump has denounced the four criminal indictments brought against him as politically motivated. He has ramped up his denunciations in recent weeks of “enemies from within,” naming domestic political rivals, and suggested he would use the military to go after them. Harris, in turn, has called Trump a “fascist.” The arena was full hours before Trump was scheduled to speak. Outside the arena, the sidewalks were overflowing with Trump supporters in red “Make America Great Again” hats. There was a heavy security presence. Streets were blocked off and access to Penn Station was restricted.In the crowd was Philip D’Agostino, a longtime Trump backer from Queens, the borough where Trump grew up. The 64-year-old said it was appropriate for Trump to be speaking at a place bills itself as “the world’s most famous arena.””It just goes to show ya that he has a bigger following of any man that has ever lived,” D’Agostino said. New York has not voted for a Republican for president in 40 years. But that hasn’t stopped Trump from continuing to insist he believes he can win.Trump routinely uses his hometown as a foil before audiences in other states, painting a dark vision of the city that bears little resemblance to reality. He’s cast it as crime-ridden and overrun by violent, immigrant gangs who have taken over Fifth and Madison avenues and occupied Times Square. Trump has a complicated history with the place where he built his business empire and that made him a tabloid and reality TV star. Its residents indicted him last year on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in that case, and also found liable in civil court for business fraud and sexual abuse.On Sunday, however, Trump was much more complimentary of the city. He said “no city embodies the spirit” and energy of the American people more.And as he concluded his speech after over an hour, opera singer Christopher Macchio came on stage to perform the song “New York, New York.” The former president smiled and swayed slightly, his wife standing next to him on stage.
NEW YORK —
Donald Trump hosted a rally featuring crude and racist insults at New York’s Madison Square Garden Sunday, turning what his campaign had dubbed as the event where he would deliver his closing message into an illustration of what turns off his critics.
With just over a week before Election Day, speakers labeled Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage,” called Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris “the devil,” and said the woman vying to become the first woman and Black woman president had begun her career as a prostitute.
Video above: Presidential candidates try to get out the vote in the last week before Election Day
“I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico,” said Tony Hinchcliffe, a stand-up comic whose set also included lewd and racist comments about Latinos, Jews and Black people, all key constituencies in the election just nine days away.
The normally pugnacious Trump campaign took the rare step of distancing itself from Hinchcliffe. “This joke does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” senior adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement.
But other speakers also made incendiary comments. Trump’s childhood friend David Rem referred to Harris as “the Antichrist” and “the devil.” Businessman Grant Cardone told the crowd that Harris “and her pimp handlers will destroy our country.”
The marquee event reflected the former president’s tone throughout his third White House campaign. Though he refrained from doing so Sunday, Trump often tears into Harris in offensive and personal terms himself, questioning in recent weeks her mental stability and her intelligence as well as calling her “lazy,” long a racist trope used against Black people.
The event was a surreal spectacle that included former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, TV psychologist Dr. Phil McGraw, someone who painted a picture of Trump hugging the Empire State Building, and politicians, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. At times, it felt like an amped-up version of the Republican National Convention in July that convened two days after Trump was nearly assassinated at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, which featured many of the same personalities — this time delivering speeches with far more volume.
And that was all before Trump was to take the stage, running more than two hours late.
After being introduced by his wife, Melania Trump, in a rare public appearance, the former president began by asking the same questions he’s asked at the start of every recent rally: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The crowd responded with a resounding “No!”
“This election is a choice between whether we’ll have four more years of gross incompetence and failure, or whether we’ll begin the greatest years in the history of our country,” he said.
Trump on Sunday added a new proposal to his list of tax cuts aimed at winning over older adults and blue-collar workers, which already includes vows to end taxes on Social Security benefits, tips and overtime pay: A tax credit for family caregivers.
This comes after Harris has talked about the “sandwich generation” of adults caring for aging parents while raising their children at the same time. Harris has proposed federal funding to cover home care costs for older Americans.
Trump otherwise repeated familiar lines about foreign policy and immigration, calling for the death penalty for any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen and saying that the day he takes office, “The migrant invasion of our country ends.”
As Trump’s remarks came up on an hour, some of the crowd began trickling out.
Tech mogul Elon Musk, who spoke earlier and introduced Melania Trump, was a prominent part of Trump’s closing campaign message. The former president called Musk “a genius” and “special.”
Musk nodded to Trump’s recent plan to allow him to lead a government efficiency commission to audit the entire federal government. Several of Musk’s businesses, including Tesla and SpaceX, have major government contracts or have relied on U.S. subsidies, and Musk has faced criticism after reports that he spoke privately in recent years with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Your money is being wasted and the department of government efficiency is going to fix that,” Musk said before taking a place offstage beside Melania Trump.
Many of the speakers Sunday appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention. This time, the same speakers shouted and railed more against Democrats.
Hogan, returning to the venue where he performed years ago as a professional wrestler, seemed to reprise his character, emerging wearing a giant red, orange and yellow boa and violently waving a large American flag as he posed and danced. He spat on the stage during his speech, flexed his muscles repeatedly and told the audience: “Trump is the only man that can fix this country today.”
Some Democrats, arguing that Trump is a “fascist,” have compared his Sunday event to a pro-Nazi rally at the Garden in February 1939. Several speakers on Sunday ripped Hillary Clinton, the Democrat defeated by Trump eight years ago, for saying recently that Trump would be “reenacting” the 1939 event.
“Hey guys, they’re now scrambling and trying to call us Nazis and fascists,” said Alina Habba, one of Trump’s attorneys, who draped a sparkly “MAGA” jacket over the lectern as she spoke. “And you know what they’re claiming, guys? It’s very scary. They’re claiming we’re going to go after them and try and put them in jail. Well, ain’t that rich?”
Declared Hogan in his characteristic raspy growl: “I don’t see no stinkin’ Nazis in here.”
Trump has denounced the four criminal indictments brought against him as politically motivated. He has ramped up his denunciations in recent weeks of “enemies from within,” naming domestic political rivals, and suggested he would use the military to go after them. Harris, in turn, has called Trump a “fascist.”
The arena was full hours before Trump was scheduled to speak. Outside the arena, the sidewalks were overflowing with Trump supporters in red “Make America Great Again” hats. There was a heavy security presence. Streets were blocked off and access to Penn Station was restricted.
In the crowd was Philip D’Agostino, a longtime Trump backer from Queens, the borough where Trump grew up. The 64-year-old said it was appropriate for Trump to be speaking at a place bills itself as “the world’s most famous arena.”
“It just goes to show ya that he has a bigger following of any man that has ever lived,” D’Agostino said.
New York has not voted for a Republican for president in 40 years. But that hasn’t stopped Trump from continuing to insist he believes he can win.
Trump routinely uses his hometown as a foil before audiences in other states, painting a dark vision of the city that bears little resemblance to reality. He’s cast it as crime-ridden and overrun by violent, immigrant gangs who have taken over Fifth and Madison avenues and occupied Times Square.
Trump has a complicated history with the place where he built his business empire and that made him a tabloid and reality TV star. Its residents indicted him last year on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He was found guilty in that case, and also found liable in civil court for business fraud and sexual abuse.
On Sunday, however, Trump was much more complimentary of the city. He said “no city embodies the spirit” and energy of the American people more.
And as he concluded his speech after over an hour, opera singer Christopher Macchio came on stage to perform the song “New York, New York.”
The former president smiled and swayed slightly, his wife standing next to him on stage.
The battle for legal marijuana continues and it is pitting the leaders of the GOP against each other…and another player has jumped into the fray
Florida is a battleground state for this election in more than one way. While the majority of Floridians are pro some form of cannabis legalization, the governor is not and has waged an all out battle with the industry. Now, Elon Musk supports DeSantis blocking marijuana legalization. How is will all end up is anyone’s guess.
In 2013, the group United for Care turned in 745,613 of the required 683,149 signatures, to do a ballot initiative for medical marijuana. The state contensted, but the Florida Supreme court allowed it to move forward. It failed with 57.6% of the vote, short the 60% supermajority required for constitutional amendments in Florida. Nevada casino owner Sheldon Adelson rode to he rescue with $5.5 million to help fund the opposition campaign.
In 2016, a second attempt was made and the initiative was approved on November 8, 2016, with 71.3% of the vote.
Now a new initiative is on the ballot and has pitted Governor Desanits and Elon Musk against the GOP Presidential nominee. DeSantis has had a testy relationship with the GOP leader since the governor’s failed presidential run. But the nominee seems to have a working partnership with Musk and has suggested creating a new role for Musk of Secretary of Cost Cutting.
Photo by Andrii Yalanskyi/Getty Images
DeSantis has struggled in his fight against the popular plant. He is under fire from leaders in his own state for using state resource to fight against legalization. Also, the group DeSantis has approved to raise funds to stop cannabis has raised less than $20 million. The pro group has raised over $100 million. But now Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), is riding to DeSantis’s rescue.
Faithful & Strong Policies, Inc., made the $500,000 contribution to Keep Florida Clean, Inc. earlier this month, campaign filings show. Keep Florida Clean. Musk has given the organization $10 million. Musk was also a supporter of the Governor’s campaign.
Polls show the initiative stands a strong chance of hitting the 60% to pass. Being a presidential year with other big issues on the ballot is a help to cannabis, but with fresh cash nd Twitter fighting it, only time with tell how it goes. And it will be interesting to see what happens with the three mega personalities of the Republican Party.
Should the GOP Presidential candidate win the election, the Heritage Foundation will have influence on policy….what’s their stance on cannabis.
The marijuana industry potential survival hinges on the next election. Federal restrictions have hammed mom and pop business and the lack of tax benefits, which benefit other small business, has been brutal. Biden’s slow actions toward is promises have allowed the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to delay their ruling on rescheduling until December, after the election. This gives the DEA some wiggle room on their decision. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is taking Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) role in trying to stop the cannabis industry. He has made it clear to the DEA they should reject any help to cannabis. So, if the GOP candidate wins, what does it mean for cannabis? The Heritage Foundation has produced a plan for the future administration embraced by senior leaders, including VP candidate J.D. Vance who wrote an opening statement. So what their Project 2025’s take on marijuana?
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank founded in 1973, has consistently taken a strong stance against the legalization of marijuana. Their position is rooted in concerns about public health, safety, and social consequences. The Heritage Foundation has not stayed current in cannabis research or public opinion, but the plan lays out a clear roadmap of a complete change of government.
The American Medical Association, AARP, and the American College of Physicians are some of the organizations who believe marijuana has a legal role at the table since it provides medical benefits. Roughly 90% of the general public believes it should be legal in some form. The Veteran’s Administration has altered policy to support veterans with PTSD. The Heritage Foundation argues marijuana is an addictive substance with significant negative impacts on physical and mental health
While science and data among legal states have disproved the myths including about it being a gateway drug for the young, the Heritage Foundation clings to old tropes. They stand by the argument consumes leads to the consumption of harder, more dangerous substances. This perspective forms a crucial part of their opposition to legalization efforts.
They argue that legalization could lead to increased crime rates. Legal states have disproven this based on data and crime rates. An additional benefit has been the decrease in alcohol as people are relaxing with gummies.
The Heritage Foundation advocates for a comprehensive drug policy with strengthened law enforcement, treatment, and prevention and education. This align’s with House Speaker Mike Johnson’s stance.
The Heritage Foundation’s stance on marijuana legalization falls in with their broader conservative principles, emphasizing personal responsibility with a dash of government oversight. Their arguments continue to influence the ongoing debate surrounding marijuana policy in the United States.
John Fabbricatore enforced federal immigration laws in his position as an ICE field office director until two years ago, and now he hopes to help secure America’s borders as a congressman.
The Republican candidate in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District is drawing on his career with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as he runs against U.S. Rep. Jason Crow in the Nov. 5 election. Crow, a Democrat, just finished his third term in Congress as the representative of the district, which includes Aurora, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village and Centennial.
The odds weigh heavily in Crow’s favor. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report doesn’t consider the fight for the 6th District to be competitive. It’s ranked as solidly Democratic, in part because Crow, 45, won all three of his elections by double-digit percentages and redistricting in 2020 resulted in boundaries more favorable to Democrats.
