The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
@alexsamuelsx5
Trump, Johnson Rush To Aid Tennessee GOP In Shockingly Tight Special Election

Trump, Johnson Rush To Aid Tennessee GOP In Shockingly Tight Special Election

President Donald Trump threw his weight behind Republican congressional candidate Matt Van Epps on Monday, calling into a Nashville rally for the special election that has grown uncomfortably tight for the GOP.

“The whole world is watching Tennessee right now, and they’re watching the district,” Trump said, speaking through a phone held to a microphone by House Speaker Mike Johnson. “It’s gotta show that the Republican Party is stronger than it’s ever been. We have a bigger, stronger party than we’ve ever had. We have more members of the Republican Party than we’ve ever had, and we love Tennessee.”

The spectacle underscored just how rattled Republicans have become in what should be a reliably conservative seat. Johnson, who flew in from Washington early Monday, cast the race as an early test for the party.

“We think what will happen here will be a bellwether for the midterms next year,” he told reporters.

As the New York Times reported, much of the rally focused less on Van Epps—an Army veteran and former state commissioner—than on the stakes for the GOP’s razor-thin House majority.

Johnson didn’t mince words about Democrat Aftyn Behn, calling her “a dangerous far leftist” who would be a “rubber stamp” for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

The special election will fill the seat left vacant by former Rep. Mark Green, a Republican who resigned in July for a private-sector job. Tennessee’s Seventh District, which spans parts of Nashville and stretches across rural counties, has reliably voted Republican for more than a decade. But Democrats see a chance to overperform after strong off-year election results in November.

Trump carried the district by 22 percent in 2024, but a recent Emerson College poll shows Van Epps leading Behn by just two percent. The tightening margin comes as Trump’s own numbers slip: a recent Gallup survey placed his approval rating at 36 percent, the lowest of his second term so far.

Behn, a state representative and former progressive organizer, has built her campaign around affordability and Washington fatigue, echoing the message that powered Democrats’ November victories in Virginia and New Jersey.

Van Epps, a West Point graduate and former Army helicopter pilot, has pitched himself as a steady conservative aligned with Trump. He won a crowded 11-way primary in October and has leaned heavily into cost-cutting themes.

National attention has turned the race into a proxy fight, with Trump holding a virtual rally for Van Epps in November. And former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared in Nashville on Nov. 18 to rally voters for Behn, while Ocasio-Cortez is reportedly going to headline a virtual rally of her own.

And the advertising blitz reflects the high stakes. GOP-backed spots mostly avoid mentioning Trump and instead hammer Behn as too liberal for the district. A Trump-aligned super PAC resurfaced old clips of her calling herself “a very radical person,” which she says was taken out of context.

Democratic ads, meanwhile, tie Van Epps to Trump and highlight his position on the Epstein files.

“The Epstein files are locked away. Matt Van Epps will keep ‘em that way,” one recent spot warned.

Fundraising has tilted toward Behn, who pulled in roughly $1.2 million by mid-November, while Van Epps brought in about $992,000, according to FEC filings.

Both parties now see the race as an early test of the national mood. For Republicans, a stumble in a district that should be safely red would deepen concerns about their ability to hold a precarious House majority and raise fresh questions about the durability of Trump’s influence.

As votes are set to be counted tonight, the contest offers an early read on where the political winds may blow in 2026—and whether Trump’s backing is still enough to keep red districts red.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Kennedy Violates Agreement On CDC Vaccine Guidance, Putting Millions At Risk

Kennedy Violates Agreement On CDC Vaccine Guidance, Putting Millions At Risk

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were stunned this week after the agency quietly rewrote long-standing language on vaccines and autism, adding false information that has been extensively debunked.

The CDC’s website, once unequivocal that studies show “no link” between childhood vaccines and autism, now carries a very different message.

The updated page says the statement “vaccines do not cause autism” is “not an evidence-based claim,” falsely arguing that research has “not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism.”

It also incorrectly states that public health authorities have “ignored” studies pointing to a supposed connection. That framing mirrors arguments long pushed by one of the country’s most prominent anti-vaccine advocates: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the CDC.

Inside the agency, the fallout was immediate. Five CDC officials told The Washington Post they had no warning about the changes and played no role in drafting them. They requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation—a sign of how fraught the science-policy boundary has become inside an agency now run by a committed vaccine antagonist.

To some former officials, the rewrite confirmed their worst suspicions. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who led the CDC unit overseeing respiratory viruses and immunizations before resigning in August, told the Post the new language shows the agency “cannot currently be trusted as a scientific voice.”

“The weaponization of the CDC voice by validating false claims on official websites confirms what we have been saying,” he added.

The shift is all the more jarring given the mountain of research behind the original guidance. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found no association between autism and the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine. A Danish study of more than 1.2 million children published this year similarly found no link between aluminum in vaccines and any neurodevelopmental harm.

The false link between vaccines and autism stems from a now-retracted 1998 article in The Lancet, an esteemed medical journal. Despite that retraction and decades of studies debunking it, the anti-vaccine conspiracy theory endures—thanks in large part to Kennedy and, at moments, President Donald Trump, who has floated baseless speculation about autism and Tylenol use during pregnancy.

Even the CDC page’s header, which says “Vaccines do not cause autism,” now carries an asterisk noting it remains only because of an agreement with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor and the Republican chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Cassidy secured the commitment during Kennedy’s confirmation process, pressing the nominee to preserve federal vaccine guidance.

On Thursday, Cassidy issued a statement condemning the new CDC guidance.

”I’m a doctor who has seen people die from vaccine-preventable diseases. What parents need to hear right now is vaccines for measles, polio, hepatitis B and other childhood diseases are safe and effective and will not cause autism. Any statement to the contrary is wrong, irresponsible, and actively makes Americans sicker,” he said.

Publicly, HHS insists the overhaul is rooted in “gold standard, evidence-based science,” as spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Axios.

Former officials aren’t buying it. Dr. Debra Houry, the CDC’s former chief medical officer—who also resigned in August—questions how the new language that “misrepresents decades of research ended up on a CDC website.”

Public health communication, she added to the Post, must be “accurate, evidence-based, and free from political distortion. Anything else erodes trust and puts lives at risk.”

Outside the agency, anti-vaccine activists celebrated the shift. Children’s Health Defense, the group formerly led by Kennedy, declared that the CDC is finally “beginning to acknowledge the truth” and “disavowing the bold, long-running lie that ‘vaccines do not cause autism.’”

That embrace underscores what’s at stake. A federal health agency once known for its methodical caution is now echoing rhetoric that science overwhelmingly rejects. With Kennedy shaping the message, the country’s most important public health voice is inching toward fringe territory—and millions of Americans may pay the price.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

New Polling Indicates A Blue Wave Building Toward 2026 Midterms

New Polling Indicates A Blue Wave Building Toward 2026 Midterms

Riding a streak of unexpectedly strong election wins, Democrats have found yet another reason to feel bullish about 2026. A new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll shows a clear majority of voters leaning blue if the midterms were held today—a rare cushion in an era defined by razor-thin margins.

The headline number is almost jarring: Democrats lead the generic congressional ballot 55 percent to 41 percent. That’s the party’s biggest edge in this poll since late 2017, just before Democrats flipped more than 40 House seats during President Donald Trump’s first term. The symmetry isn’t perfect, but it’s close enough to make operatives on both sides sit up straighter. It’s the same point in Trump’s presidency; same polling drift away from the GOP; same ominous rumble of a potential blue wave.

But the map today is far less forgiving. A decade of hyper-aggressive gerrymandering—much of it encouraged by Trump—has drained the battlefield of competitive districts. Red states have raced to redraw maps mid-decade, and blue states have retaliated. The House is now a chessboard engineered to resist blowouts, even as public sentiment sours against the party in power.

To be sure, the Marist survey paints a rosier picture for Democrats than most. A FiftyPlusOne average of generic-ballot polling shows the party up by only four points. Even so, the broader landscape appears to be tilting their way. A November poll from Strength in Numbers/Verasight had Democrats leading 47 percent to 42 percent, and that edge widened once voters were reminded that Republicans currently run Washington.

Independents shifted especially hard: In the Marist poll, they prefer a Democrat over a Republican by nearly 2 to 1, an ominous sign for a GOP already stretched thin.

Part of the story is simply political gravity. When one party controls every lever of the federal government, voters tend to flirt with the other. And Democrats come into 2026 freshly emboldened by victories in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia—races that revealed just how fragile the Republican coalition has become under Trump’s second-term stewardship.

Those campaigns also shared a common throughline: an unrelenting focus on the cost of living. While Republicans centered their messaging on immigration and crime, voters kept drifting back to grocery bills and rent. It shows. Fifty-seven percent of Americans say lowering prices should be the president’s top priority. Immigration—Trump’s defining crusade—lags a staggering 41 points behind.

The White House has taken notice, albeit later than many Democrats hoped. In the past few weeks, the administration has started talking more about “affordability,” even scaling back some tariffs that made basic groceries more expensive.

Still, plenty of voters doubt the president really grasps how strained people feel right now. Trump has spent much of his second term focused on crime, foreign conflicts, and drug trafficking—issues where public opinion is far more diffuse. The polling suggests this disconnect is exacting a visible political cost.

Trump’s approval rating has slid to 39 percent, the lowest of his second term, and only 24 percent of independents give him high marks. Nearly half the country — 48 percent — now strongly disapproves of his performance. That’s a number he hasn’t seen since the immediate aftermath of the January 6 attack on the Capitol, NPR reports.

The GOP-led government shutdown hasn’t helped. As Congress finally broke the 43-day standoff, poll respondents placed the blame squarely on Republican shoulders. Six in 10 say Trump or congressional Republicans caused the crisis, a judgment that tracks with political reality: the GOP controls the presidency, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court.

Beneath all of this sits a deeper erosion. Americans’ faith in institutions has collapsed to historic lows. Congress is the worst hit—80 percent say they have little or no confidence in it—but the media (75 percent), the Supreme Court (62 percent), and both political parties trail not far behind.

Democrats have their own internal vulnerabilities; only 57 percent of Democratic voters express strong confidence in their party. Republicans fare slightly worse, and independents tilt more favorably toward Democrats on measures of honesty and open-mindedness.

The hostility between the parties is almost total. More than eight in 10 Republicans and Democrats see the other side as “closed-minded,” and roughly three-quarters say the opposing party is “dishonest.” Independents aren’t neutral arbiters—they tend to view Republicans as more closed-off and less trustworthy. It’s a quiet but meaningful advantage for Democrats, especially at a time when the GOP runs every branch of government.

This is the backdrop to the 2026 midterm elections: a country exhausted by polarization, wary of its institutions, skeptical of its president, and, for now, favoring the party that’s out of power. The map may not allow for a 2018-style wave, but the fundamentals are unmistakably aligned in Democrats’ favor.

Whether they can hold that edge through another year of volatility is the open question. But at this moment, Democrats have momentum; Republicans have a Trump problem; and voters appear ready—once again—to hand the opposition the keys.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Defying Trump Threats, Mamdani Wins Historic Victory In New York Mayoral Race

Defying Trump Threats, Mamdani Wins Historic Victory In New York Mayoral Race

Democrat Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, was projected by multiple news outlets to become New York City’s next mayor—an outcome that would have been unthinkable just a year ago.

He defeated disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination in June, and the GOP nominee, Curtis Sliwa, frequent New York candidate perhaps best known for his red beret and love of cats.

As of publication, Mamdani led with 50 percent of the vote to Cuomo’s 41 percent, with 75 percent of the expected vote counted, according to the Associated Press.

f the results hold, Mamdani’s victory would amount to a generational break from the city’s political establishment—and a humiliating defeat for Cuomo, the once-dominant governor who left office in disgrace and had been itching to claw his way back.

What started as a sleepy reelection bid for incumbent Mayor Eric Adams evolved into a full-blown political reckoning, reshaping the city’s political map and derailing Cuomo’s attempted comeback tour.

The path to this moment took a dramatic turn in late September, when Adams withdrew from the race amid plummeting approval ratings and ongoing scandals, including federal corruption probes. In late October, he endorsed Cuomo, hoping to persuade his small base of backers to support another scandal-plagued independent.

Yet Mamdani’s insurgent campaign didn’t falter. His message was steadfastly focused on the city’s cost-of-living crisis, with him proposing policies like rent freezes, higher taxes on the wealthy, free buses, and city-owned grocery stores. And clearly, it has resonated with voters. Despite facing millions in super PAC attacks as well as a well-funded establishment candidate, he built a devoted coalition of progressive activists, younger voters, and working-class New Yorkers.

By early voting, the race had become a clear test of which Democratic vision New Yorkers preferred. Cuomo leaned on the old-guard playbook, promising stability and toughness, while Mamdani ran as an insurgent pushing for big, structural changes.

Cuomo and his allies tried to frame Mamdani as untested and extreme, pointing to his pro-Palestinian activism and criticism of Israel. President Donald Trump and far-right billionaire Elon Musk also waded in, with both endorsing Cuomo on Monday.

Earlier this year, Trump falsely branded Mamdani a “communist,” and threatened to withhold federal funding if Mamdani enacted policies the president disagreed with. “Remember, he needs the money from me, as President, in order to fulfill all of his FAKE Communist promises,” Trump posted online in September. “He won’t be getting any of it.”

Right-wing news outlets also waged a war against Mamdani. Fox News aired segments suggesting he should be deported, while the New York Post churned out near-daily front page warnings of radical rule in City Hall. (Both outlets are owned by right-wing billionaire Rupert Murdoch.)

But the attacks seemed to only harden Mamdani’s base. His campaign mobilized a grassroots operation. Volunteers hit subway stations, organizers livestreamed rallies, and voters lined up at early-voting sites across the city—a wave of energy that recalled the campaign that propelled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Congress seven years ago. Privately, Trump reportedly told allies he didn’t think Mamdani could be beaten, underestimating the candidate’s broad appeal.

Even as Mamdani’s rallies drew massive crowds, much of the Democratic establishment was hesitant to embrace him. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries waited until late October to endorse him, while New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer never publicly supported his campaign. But that apparent caution strengthened Mamdani’s anti-establishment image, positioning him as the candidate of street-level energy and outsider momentum.

For months leading up to June’s Democratic primary, Cuomo led nearly every poll, but Mamdani closed the gap and won the party’s nomination, thanks to a surge of younger voters and working-class New Yorkers fed up with the status quo. By August, polls of the general election showed him overtaking both Cuomo and Sliwa as the Democratic base consolidated around their candidate.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Trump Ensures That His Tacky Taste Will Pervade The Nation's Capital

Trump Ensures That His Tacky Taste Will Pervade The Nation's Capital

The White House has fired all six members of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, an independent federal agency that helps shape the look of Washington’s monuments and federal buildings.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the Commission of Fine Arts is terminated, effective immediately,” read an email reviewed by The Washington Post and sent late Tuesday by a staffer in the White House personnel office.

The move—first reported by the Post—came as Trump accelerates plans for several flashy construction projects, including a $300 million White House ballroom and a triumphal arch near the Lincoln Memorial. Both would require review by at least one federal design board, and Trump has been cleaning house to make sure those boards are stocked with loyalists.

The Commission of Fine Arts, created by Congress in 1910, traditionally includes a mix of architects, designers, and urban planners who advise the federal government on the capital’s architectural development.

President Joe Biden appointed the now-dismissed group, several of whom were expected to serve through 2028.

Trump’s purge is part of a broader effort to consolidate control over Washington’s two main federal design panels: the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. The White House already ousted Biden-era members of the latter in July, replacing them with Trump allies, including his staff secretary—and now NCPC chair—Will Scharf. Together, the two panels typically review everything from memorial designs to major changes at the White House itself.

The firings come as Trump moves ahead with his ambitious East Wing overhaul, which includes a proposed 90,000-square-foot ballroom and necessitated destroying the entire existing wing. The president has said the project will be funded by himself and donors, including tech bro allies.

It’s not clear whether the Commission of Fine Arts would have any real say over Trump’s ballroom. The White House has argued that only the National Capital Planning Commission—the other federal design board overseeing major construction across D.C., Virginia, and Maryland—has jurisdiction. Officials say that body steps in only once “vertical” construction begins, not during demolition, meaning the administration can proceed with tearing down the East Wing without either commission’s approval.

Speaking to the Post, a White House official confirmed the Fine Arts commissioners had been terminated.

“We are preparing to appoint a new slate of members to the commission that are more aligned with President Trump’s ‘America First’ policies,” the official said, requesting anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Trump has also taken a personal interest in reshaping the city’s skyline. Earlier this month, he floated plans for a massive arch near the Lincoln Memorial, though he’s provided no cost estimate, timeline for approval, or design details.

This week’s purge mirrors earlier shake-ups at other cultural and planning institutions, including the Kennedy Center board and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council—both of which saw Biden appointees pushed out to make room for Trump loyalists.

The Commission of Fine Arts has long reviewed high-profile White House projects, including the 2019 tennis pavilion overseen by former First Lady Melania Trump. But with Trump eager to fast-track construction, he may try to bypass such reviews entirely.The timing of these firings is hard to ignore. Trump’s push to remake Washington in his own image—starting with his gaudy, oversized ballroom—has come with a quiet purge of the very institutions meant to keep federal design in check.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

If Voters Blame Republicans For Shutdown, Why Are They Angry At Democrats?

If Voters Blame Republicans For Shutdown, Why Are They Angry At Democrats?

With the government shut down, polls show Americans are angrier at Republicans than Democrats. That’s good news for Democrats, right?

It’s complicated. Yes, voters are upset with President Donald Trump and the GOP—largely because they’ve flatly refused to even negotiate on health care protections for millions—but Democrats aren’t getting a free pass. Despite their efforts to cut a deal, many of their own voters remain frustrated and give their leaders low marks.

“Republicans have historically been more loyal. That has wavered in a couple of elections, but it’s been generally true,” Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, told Daily Kos. “The other advantage is that the Republicans currently have a president in office, and presidents have often fared better than Congress. So, in part, it’s a ‘president effect.’”

Still, you’d think Democrats would get more credit—especially now. In the days leading up to the shutdown, the party pushed for stronger health care protections. Their proposal would roll back the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s tax and immigration law, and it would extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of this year. At a moment when polls show Democratic voters want their leaders to fight harder, this was Democrats putting up a fight.

But so far, that fight isn’t resonating.

“When a party loses an election, they become less popular, including with their own supporters,” said David Hopkins, a political scientist at Boston College. “Their own supporters get very upset and say the party ‘blew it.’ Their voters are in a bad mood and want someone to blame, so they’ll blame the leadership of their own party for squandering the election and causing all these bad things to happen now that the other side is in power.”

Polling data backs that up. Since the last election, views of congressional Republicans have remained fairly stable, but Democrats in Congress are viewed far more negatively in comparison, according to YouGov’s tracking data.

That’s the paradox: Democratic voters demand tougher resistance to Trump, but they’re sour on their party even when it does exactly that.

The numbers are rough. A new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows just 26 percent of voters approve of how congressional Democrats are doing in office. And a whopping 64 percent of voters disapprove, up from 58 percent in July—and 42 percent of Democrats disapprove. Republicans in Congress do only slightly better, with 37 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval among voters.

In other words, Democrats trail Republicans by 11 percentage points on approval, even though voters overwhelmingly blame the GOP for the shutdown. That contradiction speaks volumes.


Share of survey respondents who would blame a government shutdown on Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress and President Donald Trump, or both parties equallyChart by Andrew Mangan/Graphic by Datawrapper



“It’s one thing to say you think Sen. [Chuck] Schumer is less to blame than President Trump, and quite another to say you support the job that Sen. Schumer is doing,” Reeher said. “The dissatisfaction among Democrats has been festering for a long time—at least back to the first Trump presidency. Many were deeply dissatisfied with [Joe] Biden as the nominee in 2020, and with the way the latter half of his term was managed, especially the campaign disaster. One small tilt favoring the Democrats on a government shutdown is not going to erase all that damage.”

“The Republicans have been more loyal and are more focused on the president—that’s what these overall numbers are reflecting,” he added.

Shutdown politics rarely deliver big policy wins. From December 2018 to January 2019, Trump shut down the government, demanding billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.--Mexico Border—and got nothing. In 2013, Republicans wanted to defund the ACA, kicking off a 16-day shutdown that produced little tangible results for them. At best, shutdowns offer largely symbolic wins for a party’s base. At worst, they backfire.

“I’m a skeptic about shutdown politics, but I understand the choices of the Senate Democrats because what we’re seeing in the polls is what they’re hearing,” Hopkins said. “They feel pressure to have some dramatic moment, so that’s where we are. If history is any guide, we will not end up with a real victory they can tout to their supporters.”

Maybe the problem is that voters tend not to reward effort. Resistance without real wins fades fast, and even actual achievements barely register with an exhausted public. Or maybe it’s that many Americans don’t realize Democrats can’t fully stop Trump’s agenda when they don’t hold a majority in either chamber of Congress.

The Democratic Party’s approval rating usually gets an approval boost only after it actually wins power. According to Pew’s data, their peak approval in the past decade came in early 2021, right after winning a government trifecta. And a smaller boost happened in early 2019, after they regained control of the House and wielded real power to fight Trump.

Democrats also face a structural challenge Republicans don’t: a lack of a clear leader.

Former President Joe Biden remains unpopular and is largely invisible. Former Vice President Kamala Harris lost last year’s election and didn’t connect deeply with many voters. Former President Barack Obama is nearly a decade removed from office. And while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once embodied the anti-Trump resistance, her successors—House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—are hardly household names, according to Pew.

Republicans, meanwhile, still have Trump. After his 2020 loss, GOP voters didn’t splinter the way Democrats have. Some denied he lost, and even those who didn’t deny the election results still rallied around him. No alternative figure emerged to take his place.

The good news for Democrats is that these feelings aren’t permanent. As Hopkins put it, politics is as much about emotion as logic, and Democratic voters are still angry and scared. The surest way to channel that energy outward instead of inward? Start winning again.

“It seems like the next election is a million miles away, but in reality, we have more elections than any other country and there’s one right around the corner next year,” Hopkins said. “If what you really want to do is constrain Trump’s freedom of movement to implement policies, the best way to do that is to put one house of Congress in the hands of the Democrats in 2026.”

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Hegseth Shocks Military Command With Massive Unexplained Meeting In DC

Hegseth Shocks Military Command With Massive Unexplained Meeting In DC

Hundreds of U.S. generals and admirals around the globe have been abruptly summoned to Virginia next Tuesday for a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, though the purpose remains a mystery.

The order has sparked confusion and concern, particularly after the Trump administration fired numerous senior military leaders earlier this year.

The Washington Post, which first reported the news, says the directive was sent to nearly all of the military’s top commanders worldwide. The timing—amid a looming government shutdown—and Hegseth’s increasingly political maneuvers have raised alarms that the Defense Department’s long-standing nonpartisan norms could be under strain.

The meeting is expected to take place at the military installation in Quantico, Virginia, according to the Post and CNN, which spoke to officials familiar with the plans. Yet the generals and flag officers themselves reportedly don’t know the agenda.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell confirmed to the Post that Hegseth will be “addressing his senior military leaders early next week.” Beyond that, details are scarce.

“It’s being referred to as the general squid games,” one official joked to CNN, likely referring to Netflix’s “Squid Game” show, which depicts characters risking their lives to win money.

Speculation is rampant. A source told CNN that guesses range from a group fitness test to a general briefing on the Defense Department, or even a mass firing. Whatever the reason, convening this many senior officers at once is highly unusual.

It’s unclear whether the White House is involved or if President Donald Trump plans to attend. A congressional aide told CNN that unless Hegseth plans to announce “a major new military campaign or a complete overhaul of the military command structure, I can’t imagine a good reason for this.”

There are roughly 800 generals and admirals stationed across the U.S. and dozens of other countries. According to people familiar with the meeting, Hegseth’s order applies to all officers with the rank of brigadier general or higher—or their Navy equivalents—in command roles, along with their top enlisted advisers.

The gathering follows a series of high-profile firings under Hegseth. Earlier this year, he ordered cuts of at least 20% of four-star generals and admirals, and has targeted senior officers over diversity-related issues.

Hegseth has also devoted considerable effort to reshaping the military’s culture. He has pushed to restore monuments to Confederate generals and rename bases that once honored Confederate leaders. Earlier this week, he disbanded the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services.

The defense secretary previously criticized what he saw as the politicization of the military’s senior leadership. On a podcast last summer, Hegseth said a third of top officers are “actively complicit” in politicizing the military. On another, he accused them of “playing by all the wrong rules” to appease “ideologues in Washington, D.C.”

Whatever the reason for next week’s gathering, the stakes feel high. Hundreds of the military’s top leaders—across continents and time zones—will be in one place, and no one seems to know why. The mystery has military insiders talking … and holding their breath.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Scott Bessent

Did Treasury Secretary Commit Same 'Fraud' Alleged Against Fed Governor?

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is under fire over home-loan filings that look strikingly similar to the discrepancies that President Donald Trump’s administration has been using to try to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Bloomberg reported that Bessent signed agreements designating two homes—one in Bedford Hills, New York, and another in Provincetown, Massachusetts—as his “principal residence” on the same day in 2007. Mortgage experts told the outlet that conflicts like these are pretty standard and don’t necessarily amount to fraud.

That’s almost identical to Cook’s case. In 2021, she signed mortgage agreements for a house in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and a condo in Atlanta, Georgia, claiming both as her main residence.

But unlike Bessent, Cook was immediately vilified. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte has repeatedly accused her of mortgage fraud and posted her documents online, triggering Trump’s push to remove her. Both a federal judge and an appeals court blocked the effort, forcing the administration to plead its case to the Supreme Court before a key interest-rate meeting this week.

There’s no evidence Bessent did anything wrong—and that’s precisely the point. His case highlights what critics have been saying for months: Trump’s campaign against Cook isn’t about enforcing mortgage rules, it’s about punishing a Biden administration appointee.

Allegations of mortgage fraud have become a favorite weapon for the Trump administration. Beyond Cook, Trump has publicly called out California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James to be prosecuted for similar allegations, even pressuring federal prosecutors to bring charges against James. But there’s an unmistakable hypocrisy here. As Trump targets his political opponents, ProPublica reports that at least three of his Cabinet members—excluding Bessent—also have multiple primary-residence mortgages, with seemingly zero consequences.

Cook has made clear she has no plans to step aside. In August, she said Trump “purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law.” (A federal judge ruled in her favor, arguing that “for cause” applies only to misconduct carried out while in office. The mortgage agreements at the heart of Trump’s case were signed in 2021—before she joined the Fed in 2022.)

“I will not resign,” Cook said.

Her continued presence on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors comes as the central bank approved a modest 0.25-percentage-point cut to interest rates during its meeting this week.

Bessent’s own situation is also drawing attention because of his public feud with Pulte. At a private dinner earlier this month at the conservative Executive Branch club in Washington, the two reportedly clashed over remarks the housing finance director made to the president.

“Why the fuck are you talking to the president about me? Fuck you,” Bessent said, according to Politico. “I’m gonna punch you in your fucking face.”

Pressed about the confrontation this week, though, Bessent brushed it off.

“Treasury secretaries dating back to Alexander Hamilton have a history of dueling,” he said on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

The White House and Pulte’s office have declined to comment on Bessent’s mortgage filings. An attorney for Bessent told Bloomberg he couldn’t compare Bessent’s case with Cook’s because he hadn’t reviewed her file. Bessent himself has been less diplomatic, saying Cook “hasn’t said she didn’t do it” and is “just saying the president can’t fire her.”

That line may come back to haunt him. The revelation that Bessent made similar filings undercuts Trump’s narrative and makes the administration’s pursuit of Cook look nakedly political.

For now, Cook is still on the job, while Bessent is under the microscope. And Trump, once again, is trying to turn a paperwork technicality into a loyalty test. After all, in his Washington, it’s not the law that matters—it’s whose side you’re on.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Gavin Newsom

Newsom Launches Ad Blitz In War On GOP Gerrymander

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is launching a major advertising campaign to persuade voters to support his initiative aimed at reshaping the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The Democratic governor debuted two ads Tuesday on social media—part of at least nine spots scheduled for release this week—as the ad war over Proposition 50 begins in earnest. The measure would allow Newsom to redraw California’s congressional districts, potentially neutralizing the GOP advantage expected from Texas’ new Republican lines.

“This is a shock-and-awe approach. It’s not your grandmother’s media campaign where you do one woodworking ad and put it across all platforms. We’re living in a very different media environment,” Sean Clegg, a senior Newsom strategist, told Politico.

The ad blitz is part of a multifaceted campaign expected to cost about $100 million, according to NBC News. While the spots will run across TV and digital platforms, the initial focus is likely to be on YouTube, recognizing the changing media consumption habits and the rising costs of TV advertising in California.

The first ad, titled “Blitzkrieg,” directly attacks President Donald Trump, accusing him of “following the dictator’s playbook,” and highlighting his administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement and university crackdowns. The ad is a direct appeal to California’s largely Democratic base and frames Prop 50 as a chance for voters to stop Trump.

The second ad, “Emergency,” features Sara Sadwani, a commissioner on the state’s independent redistricting panel, and is aimed at independents. She emphasizes that the new maps are temporary.

“Trump’s scheme to rig the next election is an emergency for our democracy,” Sadwani says.

Both ads end with the tagline, “Save democracy in all 50 states.”

Newsom himself does not appear in the first two spots, but a third ad that debuted on Tuesday focuses heavily on him. According to Politico, future ads will feature other national Democratic figures, similar to the strategy used in the 2021 recall effort.

But opposition to Prop 50 is already pushing back. Protect Voters First, which is funded by GOP mega-donor Charles Munger Jr., released an ad portraying the ballot measure as a threat to California’s independent redistricting commission, which voters approved nearly 20 years ago.

Munger has already contributed more than $20 million to the campaign and plans to spend more. His group argues that a vote against Prop 50 protects the commission and preserves voter trust.

The stakes are unusually high for an off-year election. California Democrats view the initiative as a counter to GOP gerrymandering in Texas, which could result in the addition of five GOP seats in 2026, with Missouri likely to follow suit.

Clegg said that the ads are designed to resonate with Democratic base voters by highlighting threats to democracy and Trump’s overreach.

“The democracy stuff is cutting because Trump has now overreached,” he said. “It’s not theoretical anymore.”

Newsom’s campaign has raised more than $13.2 million from August 11-31. And his social media tactics—mocking Trump’s all-caps, attention-grabbing style—have received a surge in engagement, with his press account gaining 500,000 new followers and more than 480 million impressions since August 1.

With nearly $10 million already booked by opponents, the Nov. 4 special election is set to become one of the most expensive and closely watched off-year campaigns in the country.

Newsom is betting that his aggressive ad strategy and high-profile messaging can mobilize Democrats and reshape California’s congressional map—putting him at the center of a national showdown and squarely in voters’ minds.

Reprinted with permission from Dailykos.

Applauded By Antisemites, Trump Posts Thuggish 'RICO' Threat Against Soros

Applauded By Antisemites, Trump Posts Thuggish 'RICO' Threat Against Soros

President Donald Trump is ramping up his legal crusade against his perceived enemies, this time targeting billionaire George Soros and his son.

In a Wednesday Truth Social post, and seemingly unprompted, Trump threatened to slap them with racketeering charges—a legal weapon historically used against members of organized crime—under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act.

The move fits neatly into his playbook: criminalize critics, intimidate opponents, and transform federal law enforcement into a blunt instrument of personal vengeance.

In his post, Trump claimed Soros and his son should face prosecution for supporting nationwide protests.

“George Soros, and his wonderful Radical Left son, should be charged with RICO because of their support of Violent Protests, and much more, all throughout the United States of America,” he wrote, offering no evidence for his claim, as usual.

Soros has long been the right’s favorite villain, blamed for everything from protests to campaigns opposing the Supreme Court. He has been turned into a caricature by the far right: a Jewish philanthropist portrayed as the mastermind of an imagined global plot to destroy “Western civilization.” Antisemitism is baked into the narrative, but that hasn’t slowed Trump or his allies one bit.

In 2018, Trump alleged that demonstrators were “paid for by Soros and others.” During the Women’s March, Black Lives Matter protests, and even recent town halls, Trump has dismissed grassroots dissent as the work of Soros-backed “paid ‘troublemakers.’” And the conspiracy theories resurfaced this summer, when MAGA social media accounts pushed images of stacked pallets of bricks as supposed proof that Soros was arming Los Angeles demonstrators against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Trump piled on, branding them “Paid Insurrectionists.”

Now he’s arguing such paranoid claims are sturdy enough to justify criminal charges.

“We’re not going to allow these lunatics to rip apart America any more, never giving it so much as a chance to ‘BREATHE,’ and be FREE,” Trump posted on Wednesday. “Soros, and his group of psychopaths, have caused great damage to our Country! That includes his Crazy, West Coast friends.”

And then, like a mob boss delivering a warning, Trump added: “Be careful, we’re watching you!”

The Open Society Foundations, the Soros philanthropy network, quickly fired back, saying it does “not support or fund violent protests,” and blasting Trump’s claims about George and Alex Soros as “outrageous.”

Ironically, Trump himself is familiar with RICO: He was initially charged under the statute in the Georgia election interference case. Of course, that hasn’t stopped him from trying to flip the script and wield it against his foes.

Predictably, Trump’s allies are cheering him on. Tech billionaire and noted antisemite Elon Musk weighed in on Wednesday morning.

“High time action was taken against Soros directly,” he said.

This latest broadside comes as Trump escalates his vendetta against former allies who have turned critics. For example, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, found himself in Trump’s crosshairs over the decade-old “Bridgegate” scandal.

“For the sake of JUSTICE, perhaps we should start looking at that very serious situation again? NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!” Trump wrote on Sunday. He later deflected the question of a possible probe into Christie, telling reporters that the decision was Attorney General Pam Bondi’s to make. This is a worrying sign since Bondi has aimed to protect the president rather than uphold the independence of the Justice Department.

Other perceived political enemies of Trump have been caught up in his wrath recently. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, saw his home and office raided last week. Trump publicly claimed he had nothing to do with the order, but he bragged he could have given it himself as “the chief law enforcement officer” of the nation.

It’s a clear pattern: Trump floats the threats and leaves his DOJ to do the dirty work.

While the president insists he’s no authoritarian, he’s acting like the textbook definition of a dictator. The result is something darker: a justice system warped into his own form of mob rule.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

MAGA Boosters Bummed As Trump Floats Looser Marijuana Regulation

MAGA Boosters Bummed As Trump Floats Looser Marijuana Regulation

Prominent MAGA figures are in a frenzy over reports that President Donald Trump will review federal restrictions on marijuana, and warn that any loosening could lead to societal chaos.

Trump confirmed he’s considering reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I drug—currently grouped with ecstasy, heroin, and LSD—to a Schedule III substance, similar to anabolic steroids, tech billionaire Elon Musk’s favored ketamine, and testosterone. The president appeared conflicted, weighing the potential medical benefits against possible side effects.

“Medical, for pain and various things, I’ve heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I’ve heard some pretty bad things,” he told reporters Monday.

Reclassification wouldn’t legalize marijuana nationwide, but it would relax federal restrictions, broaden medical research, and allow for tax breaks for some marijuana companies. Currently, the federal government classifies weed as a “drug with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

Trump has flirted with changing marijuana policy before. In 2024, he said he would support a Florida amendment to legalize weed statewide—a measure that ultimately failed.

But his recent comments on weed have many of Trump’s allies furious, framing marijuana as a gateway to an immoral and lazy society while glorifying … alcohol and tobacco?

“Our society thrived when everyone was smoking cigarettes and drinking whiskey. We became the most powerful nation in the world with liquor and nicotine,” The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh hilariously posted on X. “No country of potheads has ever thrived, or ever achieved anything at all. Every city that legalized it became an even bigger shithole basically overnight.”

Other MAGA luminaries are clutching their pearls and whining about traditional values.

“America deserves better, our kids deserve better, I don’t want to have to be smelling weed anytime I take my kids anywhere in a city or a national park,” MAGA podcaster Jack Posobiec complained on his podcast.

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles echoed the critique to Axios, calling marijuana the “liberal intoxicant of choice” and contrasting it with “traditional pleasures” like tobacco and alcohol.

“The left is more comfortable just kind of vegging out, but they should not be, because sloth is bad for the individual and for society,” he added, conveniently ignoring the fact that somebody can and do abuse both substances.

These critiques go beyond tired Reefer Madness scare tactics. Instead, they offer a glimpse into MAGA’s cultural blueprint. In their often skewed worldviews, idleness or anything resembling a stoner lifestyle is framed as un-American and a betrayal of the cigar-and-whiskey archetype of rugged masculinity they celebrate.

The debate is also deeply rooted in political signaling. Marijuana has become shorthand for liberal excess, while tobacco and alcohol hold conservative credibility—a symbolic battleground in the broader culture war. Every puff or sip is seen as a marker of ideological loyalty, dividing behaviors along partisan lines.

Yet MAGA isn’t monolithic. Libertarian-leaning groups and those skeptical of Big Pharma say they find the rescheduling of cannabis appealing, especially as a nontraditional treatment for specific medical conditions, like PTSD.

“Rescheduling marijuana doesn’t legalize it, but it does allow for more medical research,” said MAGA influencer Rogan O’Handley, who added that such a change would hurt “Big Pharma” and “Big Prison.”

Trump’s “openness to rescheduling is research-driven and shows he’s listening to the countless veterans whose lives have been changed for the better by its medicinal benefits,” MAGA influencer CJ Pearson wrote.

Currently, 24 states have legalized recreational marijuana, and 40 allow its medical use. Trump reclassifying marijuana could give the booming cannabis industry a significant boost and expand access for consumers and researchers alike.

Meanwhile, MAGA’s internal feud rages on. For now, it’s entertaining to see Trump’s top groupies tear each other apart over weed—even if they’ve mostly forgotten other controversies surrounding Dear Leader.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

A Powerful Democratic Ally Steps Up To Fight Trump's Gerrymandering

A Powerful Democratic Ally Steps Up To Fight Trump's Gerrymandering

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, will join a call with House Democrats on Wednesday as the party plans a strategy to counter a wave of Republican-led redistricting efforts during mid-decade—an open attempt to secure the GOP’s narrow House majority before the 2026 midterms.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is organizing the powwow, according to Punchbowl News.

Holder’s involvement is notable—it not only highlights how redistricting battles have dominated this summer’s political agenda but also suggests that Democrats are finally shifting to an offensive to push back against President Donald Trump’s efforts to draw rigged congressional maps in certain red states.

For years, Holder has supported nonpartisan reform, advocating for the establishment of independent commissions to take redistricting authority away from politicians. Now, however, with Republicans openly working to redraw congressional maps for maximum advantage, he and other Democrats are shelving reform talks and preparing for a fierce fight.

Thanks to Trump, GOP-controlled states are acting swiftly. Republicans are ready to push through new maps in Texas, Missouri, Ohio, and possibly Florida, with the Trump administration also urging Indiana to join in. Not every state with redistricting authority is willing, but pressure from Trump’s camp is evident.

Texas is the focal point. Statehouse Democrats are in their second week of hiding out across state lines to deny Republicans the quorum needed to pass their gerrymandered map. Trump has claimed he’s “entitled” to five more Texas seats, while Gov. Greg Abbott has suggested carving out as many as eight if Democrats continue to break quorum. As of Monday, the Texas House still lacked a quorum, with enough Democrats out of state to block Republicans from passing their gerrymandered congressional map.

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn, on Thursday, claimed state law enforcement is working with federal agents to locate the absent lawmakers. Abbott also threatened to keep calling special sessions until Republicans get their gerrymandered map—or something close. The reality is Abbott might lack the legal tools to force Democrats back to Austin, but the standoff has become a political rallying point for both sides.

Democrats, who have traditionally pushed for redistricting reform rather than partisan retaliation, argue that the Texas case is different.

“Authoritarian moves are being made ... and there has to be a response to that,” Holder warned on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, was more direct.

“I honestly don’t see any debate in the party over this,” he told Axios. “If [Republicans] are going to continue with the Texas chainsaw gerrymander, we have no choice but to fight fire with fire and use whatever legislative resources we have ... to fight back.”

He added, “Ultimately, we will fight fire with water. But nobody is on the side of unilateral disarmament ... we are not going to allow them to gerrymander us into oblivion.”

One of the Democrats’ strongest counterattacks could come from California, where they’d likely gain the most new seats. But doing so would require sidelining or eliminating the state’s independent redistricting commission—something party leaders have long resisted.

Holder’s background gives significance to the moment. As attorney general under President Obama from 2009 to 2015, he saw Republicans sweep state legislatures and leverage that power to redraw House districts in their favor. In 2017, he created the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, aiming to end partisan gerrymandering altogether. Now, with the stakes in 2026 clearer, Holder is signaling he’s willing to play by the rules Republicans have established—at least temporarily.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Americans Hate Gerrymandering -- But That Won't Stop Republicans

Americans Hate Gerrymandering -- But That Won't Stop Republicans

Texas already had one of the most gerrymandered congressional maps in the country. Now, under pressure from President Donald Trump, state Republicans are trying to go even further by proposing a map that could hand them up to five more seats.

The first draft of the new map, released on July 30, hasn’t been discussed by lawmakers and is expected to change before final approval. However, the goal is clear: to dilute the voting influence of voters of color, who predominantly support Democrats.

But new polling finds that Republicans are operating in the face of widespread public opposition. Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it should be illegal to draw maps that make it harder for a political party to win seats in elections, according to YouGov. Even more—74%—oppose drawing maps to reduce the voting power of a specific racial group.

The proposed Texas map would do both. It divides voters of color in Tarrant County (located in the North Central part of Texas) across several Republican-controlled districts. It also significantly redraws Central Texas’s 35th District, which a court forced the state to create to protect minority voting rights. The new boundaries not only ignore that ruling but are also designed to eliminate communities of interest.

The map is just one part of a nationwide redistricting fight. Republican-led legislatures are under pressure from Trump to further distort their maps in favor of the GOP before the 2026 midterm elections. What happens in Texas could serve as the national model.

As such, the fight in Texas has been escalating rapidly.

Democrats recently walked out of the legislature, blocking Republicans from reaching the quorum needed to move the bill forward. As of Friday, the map had not progressed in the legislature, despite threats of arrest, expulsion, and FBI involvement from Gov. Greg Abbott and other GOP leaders. This past Wednesday, Texas Democrats’ temporary hideout in Illinois was targeted with a bomb threat.

Despite the drama, the walkout isn’t without precedent. Democrats fled the state in 2003 to block a similar Republican redistricting plan. They did it again in 2021 to protest a voter-suppression law that eventually passed and empowered partisan poll watchers, criminalized certain election activities, and banned local officials from sending unsolicited mail-in ballot applications, even to seniors who automatically qualify, among other actions.

But this moment feels different. Democrats are not just opposing a map but also highlighting a structural imbalance that voters are increasingly aware of. When YouGov asked Americans about Texas’s current legislative lines, 47 percent said they’ve been drawn to benefit Republicans in the state. Notably, that number was only 21 percent for Wisconsin, another heavily gerrymandered state, where Democrats regularly win statewide but hold just two of eight congressional seats.

Meanwhile, a substantial majority of Americans—67%—don’t want lines in their state to unfairly benefit either party. And nearly 60% said in another recent YouGov survey that they’d rather see redistricting handled by nonpartisan commissions, not politicians.

Public opinion may be shifting, but Republicans in Austin aren’t budging. So far, the party has shown zero interest in negotiating. If anything, they could double down with an even more aggressive redraw once the walkout ends. Abbott, for his part, could also call a series of special sessions until the bill passes—a tactic he’s used before.

Unlike other states, Republicans control both chambers of Texas’ legislature as well as the governor’s office. That makes this walkout more of a speed bump than a blockade.

Still, for now, Democrats have some leverage. The longer the walkout lasts, the more attention they bring to the GOP’s brazen power grab. They’re hoping national outrage can help fuel a broader movement against gerrymandering.

“I don’t think [Trump’s] planning on those five seats alone,” Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University, told Daily Kos. “At this point, the president is staring at historic unpopularity and having to sell a historically unpopular signature piece of legislation, while the very normal midterm waves tend to go against the party of the president. He is petrified at losing control of Congress, and it’s much more than the normal petrified because of him. He knows it’s going to come with oversight, with investigations, and stop his passage of what’s been a historically unpopular public program.”

While Republicans may think the map guarantees them gains, it’s far from a slam dunk. In the right electoral environment—say, with an unpopular GOP figure at the top of the ticket—a gerrymandered district could backfire.

“I have seen partisan gerrymanders that slice a party’s own support so thin that they end up losing at the polls rather than winning,” Levitt said. “In a wave year, one of the ways that you effectuate a partisan gerrymander, usually, is you take existing districts that are quite safe and you move supporters from that district into another. And it is entirely possible to get so greedy that you cut the margin so small that the safe districts are no longer, and then, in a wave year, the other party wins.”

There is precedent for this. In 2018, Democrat Kendra Horn won a House seat in Oklahoma that Trump had won by over 13 percentage points just two years earlier. It was one of the few times a candidate flipped a district that political prognosticators had considered to be basically a lock for the other party—and it’s a warning to Republicans pushing too far.

But even if overreach costs the GOP some seats, the bigger issue is the erosion of trust in democracy. YouGov found that about a third of Americans are unsure whether their own state’s legislative lines are fairly drawn, and another 35% see their state’s lines as drawn unfairly—two signs that confidence in the process is slipping.

That’s what Texas Democrats are betting on: that the public recognizes the power grab and demands change.

“Gerrymandering is terrible and should be banned. And every Democrat in Congress right now is a sponsor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to ban gerrymandering nationwide,” Texas Rep. Greg Casar, a progressive whose district would be redrawn to favor Republicans, told NPR on Wednesday. “But what we need to be really concerned about and what I’m sick and tired of is Democrats playing by one set of rules and then Republicans gerrymandering.”

Absent federal action, that’s exactly what Republicans will keep doing. State lawmakers face virtually no constraints—and in states like Texas, where a single party controls all of state government, the temptation to rig the rules is too powerful to resist.

Ultimately, the crisis in Texas is about more than five districts. It’s a preview of a nationwide battle over how political power is allocated—and who gets to wield it.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Senate Parliamentarian Enrages GOP With Crushing Blow To Trump's Budget Bill

Senate Parliamentarian Enrages GOP With Crushing Blow To Trump's Budget Bill

The Senate parliamentarian delivered a significant setback to congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump’s extensive domestic agenda on Thursday, otherwise known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The highly unpopular legislation that’s so central to Trump’s policy goals was already on shaky ground because of its core premise: cutting entitlement programs like Medicaid to fund tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Now, about a week before the Trump administration’s self-imposed July 4 signing deadline, it’s also falling apart on procedural grounds.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a nonpartisan adviser who helps senators navigate procedures and rules, determined that several key provisions of the legislation violate the Senate’s budget rules and cannot be included under the fast-track reconciliation process Republicans are using to bypass a Democratic filibuster. Among the casualties are limits on student loan repayment options and a controversial crackdown on states’ use of the “provider tax loophole” to secure more federal Medicaid dollars.

That last one presents a big problem. Nearly every state utilizes the loophole in some form, and senators from states that depend heavily on it—especially those with rural hospitals—have warned they won’t support the bill unless it’s amended.

MacDonough’s ruling forces GOP leaders back to the drawing board. If they cannot salvage the struck-down provisions, they will lose more than $500 billion in planned spending cuts, according to Bobby Kogan, a former Democratic Senate Budget Committee staffer now with the Center for American Progress. And unless they find a work-around, Republicans would need 60 votes to keep those provisions—an unlikely prospect given the GOP’s narrow Senate margin.

Meanwhile, the tax cuts at the core of the bill remain under review.

This isn’t the first time MacDonough has blocked parts of the GOP’s wishlist. She’s previously rejected attempts to cut SNAP benefits and limit federal judges’ authority to block Trump’s policies.

Her decision has sparked immediate outrage among conservatives, with some Republicans now openly calling for her removal.

“The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters,” Rep. Greg Steube of Florida posted on social media.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville went further, attacking the “WOKE parliamentarian” for rejecting cuts to states that fund health care for undocumented immigrants.

“This is a perfect example of why Americans hate THE SWAMP,” the Alabama senator wrote. “Unelected bureaucrats think they know better than U.S. Congressmen who are elected BY THE PEOPLE. Her job is not to push a woke agenda. THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.”

Unsurprisingly, Democrats welcomed the ruling.

“Republicans are scrambling to rewrite parts of this bill to continue advancing their families lose, and billionaires win agenda,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon. “But Democrats stand ready to fully scrutinize any changes and ensure the Byrd Rule is enforced.”

MacDonough, for her part, has blocked many Democratic priorities, including raising the federal minimum wage to $15 and parts of the party’s immigration reform efforts. She is a neutral rules referee, not a political player. If Republicans dislike the process, they can always eliminate the filibuster, a tactic which effectively requires a 60-vote supermajority to pass legislation. So far, they have not.

Nevertheless, the parliamentarian’s ruling could prove decisive. Senate Republicans had hoped to vote this weekend or sooner to give the House time to finalize changes and get the bill to Trump’s desk before his holiday deadline. That timeline now appears uncertain.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune attempted to downplay the chaos.

“These are speed bumps along the way; we anticipated those and so we have contingency plans,” Thune said. He also added that Republicans wouldn’t try to overrule MacDonough’s guidance.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was less optimistic, suggesting the GOP would “probably” still hold a vote this weekend.

Behind the scenes, Republicans are trying to modify the provisions MacDonough struck down, though it remains unclear whether they can be tweaked or must be entirely removed. One GOP source told Axios that the party still hopes to “find a solution to achieve the desired results.”

If not, they’re stuck. And for Trump, it’s another prominent legislative obstacle—this time from an unelected rules referee standing between him and a desperately wanted victory.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Renaming Naval Ship, Hegseth Escalates Pentagon Offensive Against Civil Rights

Renaming Naval Ship, Hegseth Escalates Pentagon Offensive Against Civil Rights

As part of his ongoing war against diversity, equity, and inclusion, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Navy to rename USNS Harvey Milk, the ship honoring the slain gay rights icon and Navy veteran.

A defense official confirmed the decision to multiple outlets, noting that the timing was deliberate, with June being Pride Month.

Military.com first reported the expected name change, and CBS News later obtained internal Navy documents detailing rollout timelines for announcing the new name. So far, the replacement name has not been disclosed.

USNS Harvey Milk is part of the John Lewis class of oilers, a group of ships named after trailblazing civil rights figures. Others in the class are named after Earl Warren, Robert F. Kennedy, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth. But now, all are under threat of being renamed.

And CBS reports that Harvey Milk is just the start. Other ships on Hegseth’s target list include those named after Thurgood Marshall, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harriet Tubman, Dolores Huerta, and Medgar Evers. All of it is part of a broader push to erase progressive and civil rights figures from military honors.

Ship renamings are rare and haven’t happened at the direction of a defense secretary in recent memory. The last renaming in 2023 followed a congressional commission’s recommendation to scrub Confederate-linked names from military assets, including USS Chancellorsville and USNS Maury.

But this time, the motivation isn’t historical reckoning. It’s political retribution.

Hegseth’s order is part of a sweeping effort to wipe out so-called “wokeism” in the ranks, under the banner of restoring “warrior culture.” Since taking office, he’s purged DEI content from military websites, banned observances like Pride Month, and sought to undo civil rights advances. He once even suggested renaming the B-29 Enola Gay—not because of history… but because “gay” is in the name.

“Our military is the most powerful in the world – but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the ‘warrior’ ethos,” former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote on X. “It is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.”

Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the United States, and the first in California. He served in the Navy as a diving officer during the Korean War, at a time when gay service members had to serve in silence. In 1955, after being questioned by Navy investigators about his sexuality, he was forced to resign with the rank of lieutenant junior grade.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Elon Musk

Musk Rages Over Report That Tesla Board May Oust Him

Multibillionaire Elon Musk might be voluntarily stepping away from the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, but his grip on the troubled automaker Tesla is a different story—or so he’d like you to believe.

In yet another late-night social media meltdown, Musk lashed out at The Wall Street Journal over a report claiming that Tesla’s board is actively searching for his replacement as CEO.

The Journal, owned by the Murdoch family, reported that the eight-member board had reached out to multiple executive search firms and even narrowed its efforts to one top firm—all while Musk was off playing bureaucratic demolition man at DOGE.

Musk, predictably, denied the story with his usual mix of bluster and all-caps fury.

“It is an EXTREMELY BAD BREACH OF ETHICS that the [Journal] would publish a DELIBERATELY FALSE ARTICLE and fail to include an unequivocal denial,” from the board, he wrote in one post.

Then, around 2 AM Eastern Time on Thursday, he added, “WSJ is a discredit to journalism.”

A spokesperson for Tesla also issued a denial, but the Journal hasn’t pulled the story, suggesting that its reporters are confident they’ve seen or heard something the board doesn’t want public.

And frankly, it’s not hard to see why Tesla might be quietly looking for a way out.

The company is coming off a brutal quarter, with slumping sales, sliding revenue, and rising anxiety over President Donald Trump’s tariffs. And Musk’s semi-sabbatical from Tesla to run DOGE hasn’t helped. While he’s been busy slashing federal jobs and gutting public programs, Tesla has been losing market share, investor confidence, and—based on recent protests—public goodwill.

But Musk isn’t just unpopular in the United States; Tesla’s global sales are tanking, too.

In France, sales fell 59.4% last month compared to the year before, and in Denmark, they plummeted 67.2%. And Reuters reported that, while competition from cheaper electric vehicles is cutting into Tesla’s market share in Europe, Musk’s open embrace of far-right politics has also fueled protests around the world.

Not even Trump’s attempt to turn the White House into a glorified Tesla showroom has reversed the damage. Musk’s side gig at DOGE isn’t just a distraction anymore—it’s a liability.

Musk has said that he plans to spend more time at Tesla and scale back his work at DOGE, but that might be too little, too late. Demonstrators have targeted Tesla over Musk’s role in the Trump administration, while the company scrambles to keep buyers interested. It’s now sending desperate texts, conducting surveys, and even offering cash incentives to sell more cars.

Desperation isn’t a great look for a company once billed as the future of transportation.

If the Journal’s reporting proves wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time that Musk or someone in Trump’s orbit has butted heads with the outlet. The paper’s editorial board has recently criticized Trump’s Ukraine policy and his petty decision to strip security clearances from former officials.

Musk turning the full force of his rage on the Journal only adds to the chaos.

Still, the bigger picture remains: Musk is a liability to Tesla. The White House figured this out and has pushed him aside. The question now is whether Tesla’s board has the nerve to do the same.

At this rate, it’s not just DOGE that’s collapsing on Musk’s watch—it’s Tesla, too.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Rupert Murdoch

Declining Polls On Fox News Enrage President

President Donald Trump has never liked when pollsters say he’s doing worse than he thinks he is. But now he’s escalating his war on polls and the press, suggesting that even right-wing media outlets should scrap their polling arms if the results don’t flatter him.

According to a Fox News poll released Wednesday, Trump’s approval rating is officially lower than it was during his first term, just as he approaches the 100-day mark of his second term.

The survey found his rating underwater at 44% approval and 55% disapproval—down five points from the previous month. Even worse, Trump’s 100-day rating lags behind Joe Biden’s (54%), Barack Obama’s (62%), and George W. Bush’s (63%) at the same point in their presidencies.

Even Republicans aren’t exactly brimming with optimism. Just 38% of voters overall—and 75% of Republicans—say they’re “encouraged” about the next four years. That’s a drop from his first term in 2017, which showed 45% and 84%, respectively.

The same poll gave Trump poor marks across the board—on the economy, foreign policy, guns, immigration, you name it. His economic approval in particular sank to a record low at 38%, with 55% of respondents saying conditions are getting worse for their families.

So how did Trump respond to this news? By calling for Fox News to kill its polling unit.

“Rupert Murdoch has told me for years that he is going to get rid of his FoxNews, Trump Hating, Fake Pollster, but he has never done so. This ‘pollster’ has gotten me, and MAGA, wrong for years. Also, and while he’s at it, he should start making changes at the China Loving Wall Street Journal. It sucks!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday.

Of course, this isn’t some isolated poll. An April Ipsos survey for Reuters put Trump’s approval at just 42%, with only 37% backing his handling of the economy. A new Pew Research Center poll had him even lower, at 40%, with negative ratings across every major policy area. And a YouGov poll for The Economist wasn’t any better, with Trump clocking in at 41% approval, with every issue underwater there, too.

In other words: reality bites. But rather than face it, Trump’s trying to pressure outlets like Fox News and The Wall Street Journal into becoming full-time propaganda machines.

His push to kill off Fox’s polling arm is especially alarming given that it routinely produces some of the highest-quality polling in the business. If Fox caves, it would be a scandal—but not entirely shocking. Media executives have buckled to Trump before, afraid of the blowback if they don’t stay in his good graces.

Trump’s already suing CBS News’ “60 Minutes” for $10 billion, and he’s gone after ABC News, which recently settled a defamation suit and agreed to pay $15 million to Trump’s future presidential library. The Washington Post has also drifted rightward under Trump, winning plaudits from the administration for its “balance.”

And while polling isn’t perfect, Trump has a habit of going after those who publish anything he doesn’t like.

In December, he sued The Des Moines Register and veteran pollster Ann Selzer for a pre-election poll showing Vice President Kamala Harris leading him in Iowa. Trump ended up winning the state by more than 13 points, and now he’s trying to make it a courtroom issue.

Trump’s latest tantrum makes his vision clear: Any outlet that doesn’t treat him like a demigod should be silenced, sued, or shut down. What he’s building isn’t just a cult of personality; it’s a MAGA-approved echo chamber where the “truth” is whatever he says it is.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.