[ad_1]
new video loaded: Trump’s Go-To Tactic in the State of the Union
By Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer, Laura Salaberry and Ray Whitehouse
February 26, 2026
[ad_2]
Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer, Laura Salaberry and Ray Whitehouse
Source link
[ad_1]
On January 21, ICE agents in Portland, Maine, arrested Emanuel Landila, an asylum seeker from Angola, legally working as a corrections officer recruit. “Good afternoon.” Hours later, Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce publicly defended the officer in training, whom he’d vetted and hired a year ago. “In fact, he was squeaky clean. Squeaky clean.” Sheriff Joyce then delivered one of the most scathing critiques of ICE tactics by local police. “In the three minutes, they got out, they pulled a guy from the car, handcuffed him, put him in the car. They all took off, leaving his car with the windows down, the lights on, unsecure and unoccupied. Folks, that’s bush league policing.” “This guy, I knew, was not a criminal alien.” We caught up with Joyce in Washington, D.C., days after he criticized ICE operations in Maine. He’d come for the National Sheriffs Association annual conference. – “How are you?” – “Good day, Kevin Joyce.” And to share his concerns with lawmakers. “They came at him like storm troopers. The tactics. I called them bush league because it is. This is not professionalism, but it’s meeting a quota. And you can’t set quotas in law enforcement because bad things are going to happen.” To carry out mass deportations, ICE needs the cooperation of local law enforcement, mostly in the form of access to local jails. But sending thousands of masked ICE and Border Patrol agents into American cities has frayed those relations. At the gathering in D.C., hundreds of sheriffs from around the country came for trainings and meetings. “They haven’t stopped one million pounds of cocaine, enough to fill 24 or 42 dump trucks.” And to meet with government officials. Many called for better communication from ICE and more respect. “The communication is worst of the worst. We still can work together, but it takes cooperation. You simply just can’t come in our cities, overshadow us, and then expect us to respond to you.” “It creates a division within my own profession, and there’s a right way to do our job. And there’s also a wrong way to do the job. So what you’re seeing is this type of enforcement that is not making us safer. It’s dividing us.” Whether and how police cooperate with immigration enforcement has long been controversial, but especially now. “Give us access to the illegal alien public safety threat in the safety and security of a jail. Get these agreements in place. That means less agents on the street.” Over the past year, more than 1,000 law enforcement agencies have signed partnership agreements with ICE. Many hold jail inmates for ICE to pick up. “They’re already in custody. It keeps them from having to go out and arrest them in the field. They just come to our jail, pick them up, take them away.” An increasing number of states are barring or restricting some police from working with ICE. Other states have done the opposite and now require police to cooperate with ICE. “My personal opinion, I like it. We get rid of them. If we’re getting rid of the people that don’t need to be here, then it’s great.” “What was the longest that ICE held somebody at your jail?” “I want to say one was 100 days.” Many sheriffs rent out jail space for ICE detention as a way to bring in revenue. “They paid $150 per inmate, per day.” “And about how much did that come to a year?” “About $3 million. For 33 years, we’ve held ICE inmates at the Cumberland County jail. Two hours after my press conference, they pulled their 50 inmates.” In a statement to The Times, a D.H.S. spokesperson said ICE withdrew its detainees from the Cumberland County jail over the hire of illegal aliens and subpoenaed the Sheriff’s Office for its employment records. Joyce said he vetted Landila appropriately. After three weeks in detention, a federal judge ordered Landila released on bond. Sheriff Joyce is assessing whether his office can still employ him. “Kind of wanted to stop by and thank you for your efforts on the increase in immigration issues that we had a couple of weeks ago.” After the conference, Sheriff Joyce met with Maine lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are threatening to block funding for D.H.S. if immigration agents are not held to higher policing standards. “So one of the reasons we’re holding up the Homeland Security bill is to talk about adding this kind of criteria that we expect of our own police officers: not wearing masks, requiring body cameras, having actual judicial warrants before they bust down the doors of your house or haul you off somewhere. So things that people have come to expect from law enforcement and that are critical to the ability for citizens to trust law enforcement.” “We have to go back to our cities with a message of things are going to get better by the summer. If we don’t, it’s going to be a long summer. What I worry about is law enforcement fighting with federal government.”
[ad_2]
Brent McDonald, Ben Laffin, Singeli Agnew and Amogh Vaz
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Why Trump’s Reversal on Greenland Still Leaves Europe on Edge
By Andrew Ross Sorkin, Rebecca Suner, Coleman Lowndes and Laura Salaberry
January 22, 2026
[ad_2]
Andrew Ross Sorkin, Rebecca Suner, Coleman Lowndes and Laura Salaberry
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Why This 15-Year-Old’s Case Is at the Supreme Court
By Ann E. Marimow, Sutton Raphael, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Christina Shaman, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov
January 13, 2026
[ad_2]
Ann E. Marimow, Sutton Raphael, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Christina Shaman, Whitney Shefte and Nikolay Nikolov
Source link
[ad_1]
President Donald Trump could use the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer’s shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy troops to Democratic cities ahead of the November 2026 midterms, experts said.
Good, 37, a U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE officer, later identified as Jonathan Ross, after agents asked her to exit her vehicle. The Trump administration defended the agent, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claiming Good had “attempted to run a law enforcement officer over” before she was shot. But critics have condemned the killing, with the city’s mayor, Jacob Frey, calling it “reckless.”
In the wake of the shooting, the Trump administration said it would send more federal officers to the city to deal with protests and backlash.
While the administration said this was necessary to help Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials do their jobs safely, experts told Newsweek that Trump could escalate the use of troops to target Democratic-run areas and “create an atmosphere of fear” ahead of the midterm elections. Trump has not said he would do so.
The White House referred Newsweek to an X post by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that said: “President Trump stands fully behind the heroic men and women of ICE. Radical left-wing agitators should be ashamed of themselves for protesting ICE’s removal of criminal illegal alien killers, rapists, gangbangers, and pedophiles from American communities.”
“ICE is doing a very important job to remove illegal criminal aliens from our communities,” she added in comments made to the press.
Al Tillery, a professor of political science at Northwestern University in Illinois, said that Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act to send troops to different areas in America ahead of the elections.
The 19th-century statute, a combination of different laws enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871, would allow the use of active-duty military personnel to perform law-enforcement duties within the United States. Trump has, in the last few months, not ruled out using the act amid legal challenges to his deployment of troops to cities including Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C. Trump has said deploying troops to these cities was necessary to deal with crime.
“Such a mission would need to be handled by the National Guard in a role similar to the deployments in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Portland,” Tillery told Newsweek. “With the State of Illinois’ recent federal court victory against deployments in Chicago, Trump would likely need to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is the principal legal mechanism that allows a president to federalize or deploy forces domestically to suppress unrest when state authorities are deemed unwilling or unable to do so.
“There is not a doubt in my mind that Trump wants to use ICE and the National Guard to create an atmosphere of fear in Democratic cities in advance of the midterms. Whether or not Trump will get to even test the limits in this regard will depend on the Republican majority on the Supreme Court, which at times has demonstrated that they are fully supportive of Trump’s norm-busting behavior.”
Thomas Whalen, an associate professor who teaches U.S. politics at Boston University, told Newsweek that the possibility of Trump sending troops into cities ahead of the midterms should be taken “seriously.”
“Trump is usually at his worst when he thinks he’s going to lose. And it looks like he or at least his party is going to lose big time at the midterms,” he said.
The Republican Party has a slim majority in both chambers of Congress, and the party not in office tends to perform better in midterm elections. Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House during the 2018 midterms during Trump’s first term in office. Losing the House would affect the GOP’s ability to pass key legislation and advance Republican policies.
Trump has expressed concerns that the GOP may perform poorly in the midterms and the party is implementing various strategies to put the party on good footing, including putting Trump on the campaign trail and trying to redistrict states to favor Republican candidates.
Whalen said: “He’s been talking a long time about invoking the Insurrection Act and you can imagine the chaos that would cause if implemented on Election Day with a generous gallop of federal troops and ICE personnel flooding the streets in major Democratic cities like Chicago.”
However, Calvin Jillson, a politics professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, told Newsweek that this scenario was unlikely.
“This is largely a fever dream on the left as the federal courts have limited President Trump’s ability to deploy National Guard troops into cities, especially against the wishes of state and local officials,” he said, “so he would have only federal law enforcement officers, marshals, ICE, Border Patrol, etc., in numbers insufficient to the task.
“The main flaw in such a plan, however, clear from watching Minneapolis this week, is that a Trump administration show of force around the elections would be much more likely to bring Democrat voters into the streets and to the polls that it would be to intimidate them.”
The midterm elections will take place on November 3.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversatiopns. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations
transcript
transcript
“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”
By Nailah Morgan
January 12, 2026
[ad_2]
Nailah Morgan
Source link
[ad_1]
Capturing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro would be a “hollow victory” if his regime remained in power, according to John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump.
Newsweek reached out to political analysts via email on Monday night for comment.
The capture of Maduro by U.S. forces represents a significant shift in American foreign policy toward Venezuela and underscores the geopolitical complexity of the region.
The developments highlight potential uncertainty surrounding tensions among major international stakeholders, affecting U.S. relations with Russia, China and Cuba, and raises questions about the direction of U.S. engagement in Latin America.
Maduro was apprehended during a U.S. military operation in Caracas alongside wife Cilia Flores over the weekend. Both face charges in a New York City federal court, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy and weapons offenses. During his arraignment, Maduro pleaded not guilty, insisting on his innocence and asserting that he remains the president of Venezuela. Flores also pleaded not guilty and was reported to have suffered injuries during the capture.
Following Maduro’s removal, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez was declared acting president, as several Maduro-aligned officials, including Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino and National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, are in power in Caracas as well.
In an interview with NBC News on Monday, Trump said Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been in contact with Rodríguez.
In an interview with NewsNation following Maduro’s capture, Bolton said: “I’m delighted that we’ve grabbed Maduro, I wish we’d done it back in 2019.”
He added, “Let’s be clear, there’s a big difference between getting Maduro and removing the regime. Right now, facts are scarce, that’s for sure, but the regime is still in power.” Bolton continued to note Trump’s swipe at Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leader Maria Corina Machado.
“I think there’s a lot of lack of clarity to say the least in Trump’s thinking on this, and it would be a hollow victory indeed if we snatched Maduro but left his regime in place,” Bolton said.
Trump’s former national security adviser added that he doesn’t necessarily have a problem with the president previously saying the U.S. would run Venezuela in the interim as long as he has a plan for executing such an endeavor.
Bolton, on X Monday: “The White House should recognize the opposition as the rightful leaders of Venezuela. The political legitimacy for the United States to execute this attack is supported when we go with the opposition, instead of reinstating the same group that has ruled as dictators over the country for 30 years, coordinated with our enemies to make Venezuela the hub for terror in the Western Hemisphere, and waged narcoterrorism against the U.S..”
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, on X Monday: “As of this evening, the Trump Administration has now given 20 bipartisan briefings to Congress on Venezuela alone. Today’s briefing confirmed that the successful capture of narco-terrorist dictator Maduro — who was sending deadly drugs and gang members into our country — was one of the most stunning displays of military might and competence in history. Our military professionals were safely in and out with speed, precision, power, and zero American casualties. This is about the safety, security, freedom, and prosperity of the American people. This is America First, and the definition of peace through strength.”
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, on X Monday: “Democrats are focused on lowering costs for Americans, while Donald Trump and Republicans are spending all of their time on foreign wars, on ballrooms, and on private jets. How is this America first?”
Maduro and his wife are being held in detention in Brooklyn pending their next court appearance scheduled for March 17.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Crowd of people protest against inflation and financial crisis. Getty Images
(TriceEdneyWire.com)—We are repeatedly told that inflation is down, the economy is improving, and that relief is on the way. By the numbers, that is partly true. Inflation has cooled from its recent peak. Wages have risen modestly. The unemployment rate remains historically low, though the Black unemployment rate is twice the White rate. The man who lives in the House that Enslaved People Built treated us to yet another rant about how great he is. But his hysterical televised rant on December 17 was woefully out of step with what many Americans are feeling.
Millions—indeed the majority—say they feel worse off than when the current president took office.
This is not a mystery, and it is not a matter of “vibes.” It is the result of how we talk about inflation while ignoring the lived reality of the cost of living.
Inflation measures how fast prices are rising, not whether prices are affordable. When inflation slows, it does not mean prices fall—it simply means they are rising more slowly. For families already stretched thin, “less bad” is still bad. Rent that jumped 20 percent and then rose another 4 percent is still rent that many cannot pay.
The disconnect between official economic narratives and household experience is not accidental. It reflects policy choices about what we measure, what we subsidize, and whose pain we normalize.
Housing is the most obvious example. Rents remain near record highs in many metropolitan areas, home prices are out of reach for first-time buyers, and insurance and property taxes are rising alongside mortgage costs. Housing costs are the single largest expense for most households, yet they are treated as background noise in inflation debates rather than the centerpiece of economic distress.
Health care is another quiet driver of the cost-of-living crisis. Premiums, deductibles, copays, and uncovered services continue to rise. Medical debt remains a leading cause of financial instability. When people delay care or ration medication, it doesn’t show up as inflation—but it shows up in stress, sickness, and shortened lives.
Then there is insurance—home, auto, and health. Premiums have surged, particularly in states facing climate-related disasters and lax regulation. These costs are mandatory, not discretionary, yet they are rarely framed as part of the affordability crisis.
Utilities tell a similar story. Energy costs fluctuate, but electricity, gas, and water bills consume a growing share of income for low- and moderate-income households. Shutoffs are real. So is the choice between heat and groceries.
Food prices may no longer be rising at pandemic rates, but grocery bills remain high, and SNAP benefits have been reduced from pandemic levels. For families living paycheck to paycheck, food insecurity doesn’t recede just because inflation statistics improve.
What we are witnessing is not an inflation crisis but a cost-of-living crisis without inflation—a condition in which prices remain too high relative to wages, public supports are inadequate, and policymakers declare victory too soon.
This matters politically and morally. When leaders insist the problem is solved while people feel squeezed, trust erodes. People conclude—often correctly—that the economy works for someone else. That disillusionment fuels cynicism, disengagement, and anger, all of which are easily exploited.
It also matters racially. Black and Latino households, renters, seniors, people with disabilities, and women—especially single mothers—are disproportionately harmed by high housing and health costs. Declaring the crisis over while these groups struggle is a form of policy gaslighting.
The solution is not to deny progress where it exists, but to name the unfinished work honestly. We need policies that address affordability directly: expanded housing supply and rental assistance, stronger tenant protections, universal health coverage, utility regulation, and income supports that rise with real living costs, not abstract price indices.
We should also be more precise in our language. Inflation is a technical term. Affordability is a moral one. When policymakers conflate the two, they obscure responsibility.
The economy is not a scoreboard—it is a system that should allow people to live with dignity. Until the cost of living aligns with what people earn and what society claims to value, the crisis is not over, no matter what the charts say.
[ad_2]
Courier Newsroom
Source link
[ad_1]
(TriceEdneyWire.com)—Every December, we celebrate the story of a child born in a manger. We adorn nativity scenes with soft light and warm sentiment, but we rarely linger on the truth of the story: Jesus was born housing insecure. There was no room at the inn. His family was displaced, turned away, and forced to improvise shelter in the most vulnerable of circumstances.
Two thousand years later, the story resonates more than we admit.
Millions of Americans are, in their own way, “born in a manger” every year— living housing–challenged lives shaped by scarcity, instability, and impossible choices. Some are unhoused, like Mary and Joseph on that fateful night. Others are paying rents that consume half their earnings. Still others—far too many, especially Black homeowners—stand at the brink of foreclosure, victims of a system that rewards wealth and punishes vulnerability.
We uplift the manger scene as a symbol of humility and hope. But it is also a warning: a society that cannot guarantee shelter for its families has lost its moral compass.
Today, more than 21 million renter households in the United States are cost-burdened, spending over 30 percent of their income on rent. Nearly half of them are severely burdened, paying 50 percent or more. Imagine giving half your paycheck to your landlord and then trying to cover food, medications, childcare, utilities, transportation, and debt. That is not a sustainable life— it is a slow, grinding emergency.
And homeowners are not immune. The U.S. is short an estimated 2 to 5 million housing units, a deficit that drives competition, inflates home prices, and locks out potential buyers. When supply is this tight, the people closest to the edge fall first.
The racial impact is unmistakable. Black homeownership sits around 44 percent, virtually unchanged since 1960, when housing discrimination was legal. White homeownership stands above 74 percent. A 30-point gap that has survived civil rights legislation, economic booms, recessions, and rising national wealth.
You cannot call that a coincidence. It is the legacy of policy—federal, state, and local—that allowed one group to accumulate wealth through housing while systematically excluding another.
And for Black families who have managed to secure a foothold in homeownership, that foothold remains fragile. Seniors lose homes over rising taxes and insurance costs. Reverse mortgage foreclosures hit Black neighborhoods at six times the rate of White ones. Investor groups circle aging homeowners, making quick-cash offers for properties that will soon be flipped into half–million dollar condos. A home that took one family a lifetime to build equity in can disappear in a single generation.
This is not just a housing problem—it is a wealth extraction problem.
For Black seniors, home equity represents up to 75 percent of total wealth. When that home is lost—to foreclosure, tax sale, or forced sale—the wealth that should have transferred to children and grandchildren evaporates. The racial wealth gap widens. And without intervention, it will keep widening.
Housing is not just about shelter. It is about safety, stability, dignity, and legacy. It is the ability to put down roots without fearing that rising rents or rising taxes will rip them out. It is the difference between a child entering school from a place of security or a place of chronic instability. It is the difference between a senior aging in comfort or slipping into homelessness after a medical setback or a property-tax spike.
We cannot celebrate the season while ignoring the message embedded in the manger. Housing insecurity is not a moral failure of individuals—it is a policy failure of government and society.
If we want a different future—one worthy of the season’s message—we must build it.
That means:
• Protecting seniors from losing their homes to tax foreclosure or reverse-mortgage traps.
• Providing meaningful down-payment assistance to first-generation homebuyers.
• Regulating investor purchasing that destabilizes communities.
• Reforming appraisal bias and discriminatory lending.
• Investing in the affordable housing we have underbuilt for decades.
None of these solutions are impossible. They are choices. And we must choose differently.
The nativity story reminds us that even sacred lives can start under precarious roofs. It is a seasonal call not just to charity, but to justice. If we are serious about honoring its message, we must confront a national housing crisis that leaves millions insecure and strips a disproportionate number of Black families of the very wealth they fought so hard to build.
Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn.
In 2025, there is no excuse for millions of Americans—especially Black Americans—to face the same fate.
(Dr. Julianne Malveaux is an economist, author, and commentator. Her forthcoming book, Lynching Culture, the Wealth Gap, and Reparations, examines the intersection of racial violence and economic injustice. Follow her @drjlastword or visit juliannemalveaux.com. Subscribe to her newsletter at Malveauxnewsletter@gmail.com)
[ad_2]
Courier Newsroom
Source link
[ad_1]
For a moment, it looked like President Trump and China President Xi Jinping had buried the hatchet at APEC.
Then, just as eyes turned away from the Korean summit, Xi picked up an ax.
Trump celebrated his high-profile breakthrough with Beijing as a victory on tariffs, a promise of massive soybean purchases and an agreement to stop the flow of the chemicals that fuel fentanyl.
But by the next day, the smiles had vanished as Xi used his closing remarks to take an unmistakable swipe at his American rival.
In a pointed message delivered to business leaders, Xi took a thinly veiled swipe at Washington’s trade policies—positioning China as the champion of free markets while warning regional partners against joining America’s campaign to decouple from Chinese supply chains.
‘APEC economies should oppose protectionism, resist unilateral bullying and prevent the world from returning to the law of the jungle,’ he declared—words experts widely interpreted as a direct rebuke of Trump’s approach to trade.
This was a stark contrast to how Xi responded to Trump during their face-to-face meeting. ‘China and the US should be partners and friends,’ President Xi said during their summit. ‘This is what history has taught us and what reality demands.’
Brent Sadler, a former military diplomat with decades of experience in Asia, believes that Xi’s post–summit remarks were both a response to the meeting and an assertion of China‘s growing power.
China’s President Xi Jinping speaks during the Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, South Korea
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping pose for photos ahead of a bilateral meeting at Gimhae Air Base on October 30, 2025 in Busan, South Korea. Trump is meeting Xi for the first time since taking office for his second term, following months of growing tension between both countries
Chinese President Xi Jinping waves to the press as he walks with US President Donald Trump at the Mar–a–Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, back in 2017
Trump takes part in a welcoming ceremony with Xi Jinping on November 9, 2017 in Beijing, China on a 10–day trip to Asia
‘Trump very clearly set the stage for this meeting, flexing his position,’ Sadler said. ‘What we saw after the summit was Xi returning to familiar rhetoric. It wasn’t hostile, but it wasn’t friendly. It was more of a cold, businesslike engagement, and Xi was clearly sending a message.’
Sadler described Xi’s comments as ‘catty,’ adding, ‘It wasn’t just a swipe; it was almost like a threat. Xi was telling others not to side with the Americans, which is a strategic move to reinforce China’s influence in the region.’
This, according to Sadler, reveals the true nature of the US–China relationship — not a friendship, but a complex and tense negotiation, where both sides are playing a long game.
This isn’t the first time the two sides have made a deal, only for it to unravel shortly after. The last agreement struck between China and the US was effectively discarded just months after being put in place.
‘I have seen this movie before,’ Sadler said. ‘Promises from Beijing have often been made, but not followed through on. We’ll see if this time is any different.’
Asia–region analysts tell Daily Mail that while Trump’s team may have secured some initial concessions, it remains to be seen whether these will hold up over the long term – skeptical of China’s ability to meet it’s commitments on issues like fentanyl control and export controls.
‘The US needs to ensure China adheres to its commitments. The handshake deal in South Korea is only meaningful if it’s followed up with action. Trump’s team needs to keep the pressure on,’ Sadler added.
The next big summit between Trump and Xi, expected in April, will likely reveal whether these trade talks can move beyond the surface –– and if history is any indicator –– if a part of their agreement derails.
A former senior Biden administration official tells the Daily Mail it’s hard to see the deal stick. One tell: No text of a joint agreement was ever released.
‘President Xi has been willing to push back against Trump, so I could see him changing terms of the deal if Trump posts something in the middle of the night on X with an entirely new policy,’ the Senior Administration official said.
Asked for a response to Xi, a White House aide noted that the US is also playing the long game.
‘We’re a threat to them, too… I think we get along very well, and I think we can be bigger, better and stronger by working with them as opposed to just knocking them out,’ the official said.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Trump Attacks Fed Governors Ahead of Key Interest Rate Meeting
transcript
transcript
“We have a bad head of the Fed. You know who ‘too late’ is? ‘Too late’ Powell? Jerome ‘too late’ — he’s too late with his interest rates for a reason. He’s a bad guy. He’s not a smart guy, but he’s a bad guy. Well, this is a nice crowd.” “I think the risk of of higher, more persistent inflation has declined.” “I just heard it could be that all four commissioners in the Fed signed by Biden — I hear that the autopen… … They put people there that are not authorized to be there.”
By Shawn Paik
December 10, 2025
[ad_2]
Shawn Paik
Source link
[ad_1]
President Trump has made misleading statements about the cost of a Thanksgiving meal, turkey and gasoline.
[ad_2]
Linda Qiu, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart and Pierre Kattar
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Howard Lutnick’s Family Business Is Cashing In on Data Center Deals
By Eric Lipton, Christina Shaman, June Kim, Zach Wood and Leila Medina
November 20, 2025
[ad_2]
Eric Lipton, Christina Shaman, June Kim, Zach Wood and Leila Medina
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Saudi Arabia’s Return to Washington
By David E. Sanger, Melanie Bencosme, Leila Medina, James Surdam and Rebecca Suner
November 19, 2025
[ad_2]
David E. Sanger, Melanie Bencosme, Leila Medina, James Surdam and Rebecca Suner
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Behind the Vote to Release the Epstein Files
By Annie Karni, Claire Hogan and James Surdam
November 18, 2025
[ad_2]
Annie Karni, Claire Hogan and James Surdam
Source link
[ad_1]
U.S. Vice President JD Vance has criticized “scumbags” for attacking his staff after a self-proclaimed journalist questioned whether his deputy press secretary was “a vile bigot.”
Sloan Rachmuth had posted about Buckley Carlson, Vance’s deputy press secretary and the son of former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, claiming “racism and antisemitism is a Carlson family trait” amid the ongoing fallout from Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. Vance said he had “zero tolerance for scumbags attacking my staff,” in response.
Rachmuth told Newsweek: “I’m pleased to say that I have received an overwhelming amount of support from members of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Christian and Jewish leaders have reached out to me for support as well.” She added that she hadn’t heard from anyone in the Carlson family since she posted her tweets.
Newsweek reached out to Vance and Buckley Carlson to comment on this story outside of normal business hours.
The social media spat came after Tucker Carlson stoked controversy in October for interviewing far-right commentator Fuentes, a Holocaust denier and extremist who has praised Adolf Hitler. It shows controversy from that interview is ongoing and is affecting other figures in American politics.
Meanwhile, American politics has become increasingly polarized in recent years with the rise of social media sparking conversations about the line between free speech and allowing unbridled discourse, including hate speech.
Writing on X, Rachmuth, an investigative journalist with 48,000 followers on the platform, said: “Today, we learned that Tucker Carlson’s brother idolizes Nick Fuentes. Racism and antisemitism is a Carlson family trait. Is Tucker’s son Buckley, who serves as JD Vance’s top aide also a vile bigot? America deserves to know how deep the Carlson’s family ethnic and religious hatred runs.” She did not expand or offer evidence to support this view.
In response, Vance wrote on X: “Sloan Rachmuth is a ‘journalist’ who has decided to obsessively attack a staffer in his 20s because she doesn’t like the views of his father. Every time I see a public attack on Buckley it’s a complete lie. And yes, I notice ever person with an agenda who unfairly attacks a good guy who does a great job for me.”
He continued: “Sloan describes herself as a defender of ‘Judeo-Christian Values.’ Is it a ‘Judeo-Christian value’ to lie about someone you don’t know? Not in any church I ever spent time in!”
In another post, he said: “I have an extraordinary tolerance for disagreements and criticisms from the various people in our coalition. But I am a very loyal person, and I have zero tolerance for scumbags attacking my staff. And yes, *everyone* who I’ve seen attack Buckley with lies is a scumbag.”
Rachmuth wrote back: “Mr. Vice President, that ‘someone I don’t know’ is one of your top advisors [sic] being paid with taxpayer funds. It’s not the guy who trims your shrubs or cuts your hair. And YES, defending Judeo-Christian values entails speaking out against the antisemitism that’s tearing our nation apart. It also involves questioning those at the highest level of government about their hires, and speaking truth to power when needed. Sir, shall I remain quiet while Jews like me are being targeted by massive media platforms, and while our country is being destroyed by hate?? Or can I continue to ask questions and fight against injustices without being unfairly questioned about my loyalty to my country? I look forward to hearing back from you.”
President Donald Trump told reporters in November: “You can’t tell [Tucker Carlson] who to interview—if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes, I don’t know much about him, but if he wants to do it…you know people have to decide, ultimately the people have to decide.”
Nick Fuentes shared a video clip of this quote with the caption: “Thank you Mr. President!”
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro referenced the term “groypers,” used to describe Fuentes’ supporters, when he said in a post on X: “No to the groypers. No to cowards like Tucker Carlson, who normalize their trash. No to those who champion them. No to demoralization. No to bigotry and anti-meritocratic horses***. No to anti-Americanism. No.”
The fallout from the Fuentes interview looks set to continue.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
new video loaded: How to Make Sense of Law Enforcement in the Streets
By Bora Erden, Claire Hogan, Laura Salaberry and Alexandra Ostasiewicz
November 15, 2025
[ad_2]
Bora Erden, Claire Hogan, Laura Salaberry and Alexandra Ostasiewicz
Source link
[ad_1]
new video loaded: Epstein’s Emails About Trump
By Steve Eder, Claire Hogan, James Surdam, Stephanie Swart and Nikolay Nikolov
November 13, 2025
[ad_2]
Steve Eder, Claire Hogan, James Surdam, Stephanie Swart and Nikolay Nikolov
Source link
[ad_1]
Republican U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia took a swipe at her fellow Republicans on the heels of Tuesday night’s sweeping Democratic wins across the country.
Newsweek reached out to GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office via email for comment Wednesday night.
The Democratic victories in mayoral and gubernatorial races—as well as a key ballot measure—across New York, New Jersey, Virginia and California have prompted public criticism and questions from high-profile conservative figures. Tuesday’s losses by the GOP could be viewed as a barometer for voter attitudes ahead of the 2026 midterms, reflecting broader dissatisfaction among core Republican constituencies and raising questions about the party’s direction and messaging.
Greene, known for her advocacy of President Donald Trump’s agenda, has also sharply condemned her own party recently on policies pertaining to Israel and health care.
Tuesday’s elections saw significant Democratic gains. In New York City, State Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral race against high-profile opponents. New Jersey elected Mikie Sherrill as governor after a tightly fought race, and in Virginia, Abigail Spanberger became the state’s first female governor. Democrats also secured a substantial advantage with California’s Proposition 50 redistricting measure, potentially impacting House control in 2026.
These outcomes follow a polarizing race for Virginia attorney general, where Democrat Jay Jones prevailed despite controversy over leaked text messages containing violent references aimed at a Republican lawmaker. The victories are seen by many analysts and political figures as a signal that Democrats have regained momentum after losses in the 2024 election cycle—while some Republican voices warn of growing disconnection from core voters.
In a post to X on Wednesday, Greene said: “If you don’t understand, yesterdays [sic] election results, here are the groups that Republicans have disenfranchised: 1. America First America Only. 2. MAHA. 3. Americans suffering from high cost of living, rising food and energy prices, and leaving them out to dry with no plan on our skyrocketing health insurance premiums. You can’t meme and throw red meat rants and interviews and get your way out of this. These people are serious and only support action, they are done with words. And I completely agree with them.”
Trump, on Truth Social Monday, before the elections: “Virginia and New Jersey, VOTE REPUBLICAN IF YOU WANT MASSIVE ENERGY COST AND CRIME REDUCTIONS. The Democrats will double and even triple your Energy Costs, and CRIME will be rampant. A vote for the Democrats is a DEATH WISH! VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!”
Johnson, on X Wednesday: “Zohran Mamdani’s victory marks the BIGGEST WIN FOR destructive, dangerous, big government SOCIALISM in U.S. history — and a loss for freedom loving American people. He’s an unapologetic Marxist — fully EMBRACED by the Democrat establishment. Hakeem Jeffries ENDORSED him. Barack Obama personally called to CONGRATULATE him. The Democrat Party has officially surrendered to socialists and the radicals who HATE America — they now control the movement.”
Greene, on The View this week, in part, about the ongoing government shutdown: “The government has failed all of us and it purely disgusts me. It really does. And I represent a district that is rural, manufacturing district, blue-collar workers, and people have been crushed by decades of failure in Washington, D.C. And so, I have no problem pointing fingers at everyone, and the worst thing that I just can’t get over is we’re not working right now, and I put that criticism directly on the speaker of the House.”
The Democratic Party will likely aim to build on these momentum shifts as it prepares for the 2026 midterm elections, particularly with an eye toward regaining House control. Republican leadership faces mounting pressure to address internal divisions, clarify the GOP’s platform and offer policy alternatives for key issues like health care, the cost of living and economic insecurity.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Progressive-backed candidates flipped three school board seats in a district near Houston, Texas, as Democrats flipped seats across the country Tuesday night.
Mike Doyle, chair of the Harris County Democrats, told Newsweek in a phone interview that the wins in a red-leaning, suburban area are a testament to “a lot of hard work” by candidates and their supporters.
Newsweek reached out to the Harris County GOP for comment via email.
Tuesday’s elections were a key bellwether for the electorate’s mood ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when Democrats are hoping to stage a comeback following losses in the 2024 elections. The results fueled Democratic optimism after a year of uncertainty about the party’s future, with Democrats outperforming expectations in key races.
Those victories extended to suburban Texas. The Lone Star State has been viewed as a reliably conservative state. Democrats did make some gains in the first Trump administration, but it shifted back toward Republicans last November. Still, Democrats are hoping to make the state’s Senate race competitive next November.
Public education has remained a divisive issue in Texas as some state legislators have supported bills that would infuse religion into schools, including by requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms across the state.
Three candidates who have identified as being more progressive flipped seats on the Cypress-Fairbanks ISD school board, reported local news outlet Houston Press. Lesley Guilmart, Cleveland Lane Jr. and Kendra Camarena all defeated Republican-aligned candidates in the race, the news outlet reported.
That is the third-largest school district in the state
Technically, the board is nonpartisan, but Guilmart, Lane and Camarena have all voted in Democratic primaries, while their opponents were viewed as more conservative. They have said they would keep their personal politics off of the school board due to its nonpartisan nature, the news outlet reported.
Conservatives previously held a 6-1 majority on the school board, but will now be in a 4-3 minority, reported Houston Public Media. They have implemented policies including book-banning practices and adding a Bible-focus elective course for students, according to the report.
The races became competitive as voters saw “Republican ideologues fully revealed themselves,” Doyle told Newsweek. The race, despite the nonpartisan nature of the board, had become partisan, he said.
“They were focused on banning books and running off good teachers and cutting school budgets, and pretty much ripping into the fabric of the school system out there,” he said.
Their defeat comes amid a broader debate about religion in schools, of which Texas has found itself the center after lawmakers passed a bill that required schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. In August, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, issued a statement directing schools to abide by the order.
“The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country,” he said in a statement at the time.
School Board Trustee-elect Lesley Guilmart wrote in a Facebook post: “’Im so proud of us, and I am deeply grateful. We came together across lines of difference, from across the political spectrum to do right by our children. Every student and staff member deserves to thrive in our district, and Cleveland4CFISD, Kendra 4 CFISD, and I will fight for just that.”
Zeph Capo, president of Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT) wrote in a statement: “While there’s more work to do to make this board representative of the community and responsive to its needs, this victory turns the page on a dark chapter in this district’s history. The trustees defeated last night routinely pushed the school board into a hard right turn to the extremist fringe, and voters said enough.”
Republicans will continue to grapple with losses during Tuesday night’s elections. Democrats performed well across the country, including in high-profile contests like the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races. Victories also extended into states like Georgia and Mississippi.
[ad_2]
