The New York City primaries underlined divisions in the party over Gaza, with implications for the 2028 election.
The Virginia House of Delegates voted Monday to delay the effective date of a ban on carrying modern semiautomatic firearms after suffering a defeat in court. A […]
A new White House hire of a controversial former Donald Trump adviser could land Chief of Staff Susie Wiles in court.On Monday, a report claimed the White House is in talks to bring Jason Miller, long associated with the president since his first term, back to help with communications issues before the midterm elections. That potential hiring did not go unnoticed by Miller’s former girlfriend A. J. Delgado who has been waging a war with him for years over child support.Delgado, a former Trump 2016 campaign aide, immediately questioned the hiring decision, with a flood of posts on X, including notifying Wiles she can expect to hear from the court that is hearing her lawsuit aimed at Miller.In previous public statements, Delgado has alleged that Miller engaged in "a cycle of sexual coercion, rape, sexual assault, abuse, battery, sexual harassment, and sex trafficking." The accusations carry substantial weight given her proximity to Trump's inner circle and her detailed familiarity with Miller's behavior.Beyond the assault allegations, Delgado has characterized Miller as deliberately evading child support obligations—a pattern that extends back years and now faces fresh scrutiny as Miller assumes a prominent White House role. Following the new hiring announcement, she wrote on X, "30 days out from a child support trial, Jason Miller suddenly joins the White House (salary of $195,000), when he earned $14 million in the past 12 months. Nothing to see here. Just a 98% reduction in income. Wink-wink. The timing is a total coincidence, am sure."She added, "Hi @SusieWiles47 , I'm moving the court to allow me to take your deposition. Am curious when/why this decision to hire (disgraced) Miller was made, reducing Miller's income by 98%... quite conveniently, a mere 30 days out from my son's long-awaited child support trial..."
A former Republican State Department official is warning that President Donald Trump's reliance on executive decrees and rule-breaking will eventually be turned against his own supporters — and that the satisfaction MAGA feels now is, at best, "a sugar high."The warning came from Kim R. Holmes, a former Assistant Secretary of State and historian, in a post amplified by conservative attorney Gregg Nunziata. Holmes argued that the norms Trump is shattering will not stay broken in his favor."Every single rule broken, law violated, and norm transgressed by exclusive presidential decree or action will now be thrown back at us from the other direction," Holmes wrote.He faulted Trump for governing through reversible directives rather than durable legislation, writing that even when the president "addresses a legitimate problem, he does so not by arranging the passage of permanent laws...but by lazily using presidential directives and 'memos' that can be reversed the minute another president enters the White House."Holmes cautioned that Trump's base may be operating under a dangerous illusion."His supporters may delude themselves into thinking that he or someone like him will rule forever," Holmes wrote, suggesting Trump "may be counting on this sentiment to stay in power, as a pathway to a new kind of authoritarian rule."But power, Holmes noted, is temporary. "He will not stay in power forever," he wrote, predicting that supporters "will then discover the cost of such complicity, when in all this edgy rule breaking is turned against them."He anticipated the standard rebuttal — that progressives were already weaponizing the rules — and dismissed it as shortsighted."It may feel good now, but it is at best a sugar high," Holmes wrote. "Before you could at least legitimately complain that the rules were being broken. No more."The post built on a thread that drew in prominent conservative voices. Holmes was responding to commentator Erick Erickson, who had simply replied "Yes" to a warning from the user Chris, who posts as @chriswithans."Do you hear that, MAGA Republicans?" Chris wrote. "What's going to stop the next Democrat president from firing half the civil service when they take power again? Imagine 300,000 federal government employees permanently 'laid off.' For good. Are you happy now. Is this what you wanted."That post, in turn, responded to former U.S. attorney and legal analyst Barb McQuade, who warned about the implications of the Slaughter case for the federal workforce."The Slaughter case, overturning precedent, returns us to a spoils system where a president can 'clean house' every four years, destroying our professional, independent civil service," McQuade wrote.The chain of reaction — spanning conservative insiders, legal experts, and Trump critics alike — underscored a growing argument that the expansion of unchecked executive power sets a precedent neither party may be able to contain once the White House changes hands.
Vice President JD Vance revealed the new scheme he has cooked up to salvage what's left of his political career during a recent talk at the Nixon Presidential Library, according to one political analyst. David A. Graham, a staff writer at The Atlantic, argued in a new edition of "The Atlantic Daily" newsletter that Vance's comments about Watergate being a 12-hour news story today were revealing for all of the wrong reasons. Vance may have been trying to make a point about the state of the American media, but instead exposed that he is cozying up to President Donald Trump's corrupt side as he seeks a way to take the MAGA reins once Trump leaves office. "If it’s true that Watergate wouldn’t make a dent today, that is a reason to lament the fallen state of politics, not to conclude that Watergate was just fine," Graham wrote. "This would be a powerful argument coming from the vice president, who has worried about what he sees as insufficient morality in American society and has said that his role is 'to try to apply moral principles in ways that get the best outcomes,'" he added. "Instead, Vance has concluded that his best chance at political advancement is to hitch himself to the corrupt and unethical Trump. Such cynicism would do Nixon proud."Vance's comments were made at a time when analysts have called out multiple deals the Trump administration struck that appear to financially benefit the president and his family. For instance, the New York Times reported on a mining deal in Kazakhstan involving Trump's sons, Don Jr. and Eric, that could also net Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's family a financial windfall.
A Republican lawmaker slammed the calamity the Trump administration has created by revoking Temporary Protected Status for thousands of immigrants. Last year, the Trump administration abruptly revoked TPS for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, a move that impacted approximately 356,000 people currently living in the U.S. The order was swiftly challenged, but the Supreme Court recently ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to unilaterally revoke TPS, an opinion that stunned many legal analysts. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) slammed the decision during a new interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead." "As I have stressed to the administration for over a year, while I don't dispute the president's ability to end TPS ... it is foolish to do it at this moment because we are going to create a calamity within our own health care system as a result," Lawler said. Lawler, whose district includes one of the largest Haitian immigrant populations in the U.S., noted that many of these immigrants work in health care, caring for the elderly and disabled. He added that he's asked the administration to instead extend work visas to the immigrants, some of whom have lived in the U.S. for decades. Lawler also noted that it would be dangerous to send Haitian and Syrian immigrants back to their home countries, which raises a host of questions about the timing of the move. "The fact is, from a humanitarian standpoint, it is disastrous to send them back home at this moment, and it will have a profound negative impact on the American people," Lawler said.
Iran allegedly attacked commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to counter a new southern corridor developed by the U.S. and Oman, analysts say.
One week after Democratic insurgent victories in New York, the focus is now moving to Colorado, where challenges in a trio of races are threatening candidates backed by the party establishment.
Democratic Socialists are on the charge in the leadup to the next Congress – but their current winning streak doesn't insulate the party from trouble down the line.