Category: Election

Some Democrats are calling for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to testify before Congress regarding a significant Medicaid fraud scandal that has unfolded under his administration.

Amid growing scrutiny over a large-scale Medicaid fraud scandal in Minnesota, some Democrats are advocating for Governor Tim Walz to testify before Congress. This scandal appears to be more extensive than initially believed, raising questions about accountability within the state’s administration.

Representative Johnny Olszewski, a Democrat from Maryland, emphasized the need for thorough investigations into any instances of fraud. “I think any instance of fraud should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent, and so the federal government should play an oversight role in federal dollars,” he told Fox News Digital. He further stated that states have a responsibility to ensure proper administration of these programs. “Where there’s fraud, people should be prosecuted for that fraud,” Olszewski added.

When asked whether Walz should be compelled to testify regarding the significant financial losses attributed to fraud during his tenure, Olszewski responded that “anyone” involved in large-scale fraud “should come before Congress and tell us what happened.”

Other Democrats echoed Olszewski’s sentiments, suggesting that Walz should face scrutiny. However, some party members deflected responsibility, instead pointing fingers at former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Representative Becca Balint from Vermont remarked, “It is not a partisan issue. I just wish that we could focus on really looking at where the facts take us and not have it be that one side is trying to fight waste, fraud, abuse, and the other isn’t.” She was addressing the need for preventive measures against the kind of extensive fraud witnessed in Minnesota.

Representative Glenn Ivey, also a Democrat from Maryland, noted the ongoing challenges with fraud, stating, “There’s always a fraud issue. That’s why the Department of Justice had a huge civil fraud division that did a lot of great work, and that’s why we have [Inspector Generals] and the like throughout the federal government.” He criticized the Trump administration for eliminating key oversight positions, calling it one of the worst decisions if they were serious about combating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Representative Don Beyer from Virginia offered a different perspective when asked if Walz should testify. “Oh I don’t know that you need the governor to do it. Certainly somebody from Minnesota that has the best insight into what went wrong should,” he said.

In a press conference held on Thursday, federal authorities in Minnesota announced new charges related to the fraud scandal, which has garnered national attention. They indicated that the scope of the crisis extends beyond previous reports, suggesting a more complex web of deceit.

According to reports, Minnesota Democratic lawmakers have received over $50,000 in campaign donations from individuals involved in the fraudulent activities that exploited taxpayer funds intended for child nutrition programs. This revelation has intensified calls for accountability and transparency in the handling of state resources.

The ongoing investigation into the Medicaid fraud scandal raises critical questions about oversight and governance in Minnesota. As the situation develops, the pressure on Governor Walz and other state officials to address these issues and provide answers to the public is likely to increase.

As the scandal unfolds, it remains to be seen how state and federal authorities will respond and whether Governor Walz will ultimately be called to testify regarding the mismanagement of Medicaid funds in Minnesota, according to Fox News Digital.

Chloe Cole, a detransitioner, advocates against gender transition procedures for minors, sharing her personal experiences and complications from medical interventions during a recent event with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Chloe Cole, a 21-year-old detransitioner, joined U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday to advocate for the cessation of gender transition procedures for minors, drawing from her own experiences.

During the announcement, which outlined proposed regulatory actions aimed at ending “sex-rejecting procedures” on minors, Cole expressed her concerns about the medical interventions she underwent between the ages of 12 and 16. These procedures included puberty blockers, testosterone injections, and a double mastectomy, all of which she claims have had irreversible effects on her health.

The proposed actions by HHS are part of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January, which called for measures to protect children from what he termed “chemical and surgical mutilation.” According to an HHS official, the new policies could lead to the defunding of hospitals that provide gender transition procedures.

Reflecting on her journey, Cole stated, “As soon as gender was in the picture, none of my doctors or psychologists asked the real questions that they should have. The entire focus was on my feelings and what I wanted rather than what I really needed in that moment.” She emphasized that what she truly needed was affirmation and love for her identity as a “young and yet tomboyish little girl.”

Cole criticized her medical providers for failing to adequately inform her about the risks associated with the treatments, focusing instead on the perceived benefits of halting female puberty and promoting male secondary sexual characteristics through testosterone. “There was nothing they could say to me that would make me understand the gravity of what I was about to go through, because I was still growing up,” she explained. “I had very little experience in the world, and I simply would not be mature enough to be equipped to undergo such a life-changing procedure in every way.”

She noted that her parents never believed she was transgender but felt pressured by the medical community. “At the time when we started going through this as a family, there really were no resources that would speak to the reality of transgenderism, especially for children,” Cole said. “Most people were not aware then that this was something that was even happening in our hospital systems.”

Cole recounted that her parents were warned that if they did not allow her to transition, she would likely face severe mental health consequences, including suicide. “My legal guardians were forced to make this decision under duress,” she stated. “But even if my parents had supported transitioning medically from the start, no parent or any adult ultimately has a right to determine whether a child gets to be chemically sterilized or mutilated.”

Since undergoing these procedures, Cole has experienced numerous complications that continue to affect her quality of life. She revealed that her fertility status remains uncertain and that she will not be able to breastfeed due to her surgical removal of breast tissue. “As an adult, I am now grieving,” she shared. “On top of that, the areolar skin grafts they used in my surgery began to fail two years afterward. I must wear bandages on my chest every day.”

In 2023, Cole filed a lawsuit with the Center for American Liberty (CAL) against the hospitals involved in her care, alleging that they pushed her into what she describes as medical mutilation. Mark Trammell of CAL commented on the HHS announcement, stating that it represents a critical acknowledgment that experimental medical interventions on children experiencing gender distress have failed to meet basic safety and effectiveness standards. “It signals that medicine must return to its core ethical obligation: First, do no harm,” Trammell added. “We will continue fighting to ensure accountability for the institutions that promoted these practices and to secure justice for the children and detransitioners whose lives were forever altered.”

Dr. Marc Siegel, a senior medical analyst for Fox News, expressed support for a more conservative approach to treating minors with gender dysphoria. He highlighted potential long-term effects of puberty blockers, including bone loss and fertility issues, advocating for the treatment of underlying mental health concerns before considering irreversible medical interventions. “The welfare of the child must come first,” Siegel stated, emphasizing the need for a cautious and supportive approach.

Cole concluded her remarks by urging children who are questioning their gender identity to take their time. “While there are only two sexes, there are a million different ways that you can be yourself,” she said. “God is there for you. He is the one who has created you this way, and you can seek his counsel. You can continue praying, and I think ultimately it’s connecting with your family, building your purpose in this world, and looking to the gospel and up to God.”

For further insights on this topic, Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump is campaigning in North Carolina to support Michael Whatley’s Senate bid, as the GOP aims to retain a crucial seat in the 2026 midterm elections.

President Donald Trump is making a significant campaign stop in North Carolina this Friday, focusing on the imperative of retaining an open Senate seat previously held by a Republican. The event is part of the GOP’s strategy to maintain control in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.

Trump will join forces with Michael Whatley, a former chair of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the leading candidate for the GOP Senate nomination to succeed retiring Republican Senator Thom Tillis. Whatley is expected to face off against former two-term Democratic Governor Roy Cooper in what is anticipated to be one of the most competitive and costly Senate races in the nation, as the GOP seeks to uphold its 53-47 majority in the Senate.

Affordability is set to be a central theme in the campaign, with rising prices being a significant concern for voters. “President Trump won North Carolina all three times—2016, 2020, and 2024—because he connects directly with the people of North Carolina, talking about the issues that they care about. So it is very important to have him on the ground,” Whatley stated in a recent interview with Fox News Digital.

One of the challenges for Republicans heading into the midterms is mobilizing low-propensity MAGA voters and other Trump supporters, who may not turn out in elections where the former president is not on the ballot. Whatley, who was encouraged by Trump to run for the Senate, hopes to see the president return to North Carolina multiple times during the campaign.

<p”He is fantastically popular in North Carolina,” Whatley remarked about Trump. “He has a real affinity for the state. The voters love him, and it’ll be very, very good to get him back in North Carolina.” Whatley and other Republicans are framing the 2026 elections as a referendum on Trump and his policies.

<p”We’re certainly going to need him to be on the ballot,” Whatley emphasized. “When you think about what happens if we lose the House, if we lose the Senate, if the Democrats take over, they will revert to investigations and hoaxes and impeachments. That is really, truly the president and his legacy on the ballot.”

With inflation remaining a persistent issue, Democrats have been focusing on affordability, which contributed to their successes in recent elections. Whatley acknowledged that while the economy has been a challenge, he believes there are signs of improvement. “We’re seeing signs already that the economy is starting to tick up and is starting to take hold as the President’s policies are getting in place,” he said. “We need to ensure that we have the trade policies, the tax policies, and the regulatory policies from this administration that will benefit our small businesses, manufacturers, and farmers across North Carolina.”

However, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin has a different perspective, asserting that Trump and the Republicans are headed for electoral defeat. “Donald Trump has lost the economy, is losing his mind, and is going to lose the midterms,” Martin stated ahead of Trump’s event in North Carolina.

Whatley has been actively campaigning across North Carolina, emphasizing his commitment to engaging with every community. “We will be in all 100 counties across North Carolina, and we’re fighting for every single family,” he said. He also expressed confidence in his connection to Trump, stating, “Our voters know Donald Trump, and they know me. I’ve worked on his campaigns since 2016. President Trump won North Carolina in all three election cycles. So we know how to win, and we have the policies that are going to win.”

In his criticism of Cooper, Whatley argued that the former governor has consistently sided with unpopular positions. “Roy Cooper is on the wrong side of every 80-20 issue. He has fought harder for criminals, for illegal aliens, and for those who want to compete in women’s sports and use women’s locker rooms. Those are issues he will have to defend,” Whatley charged.

In response, Cooper’s campaign countered by stating that the former governor has dedicated his career to advocating for North Carolina families, focusing on lowering healthcare costs and enhancing community safety. They criticized Whatley for his long-standing ties to Washington politicians, claiming he has prioritized the interests of billionaires and special interests over the middle class.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the stakes are high for both parties in North Carolina, with the outcome likely to have significant implications for the balance of power in the Senate.

According to Fox News, the race is shaping up to be a pivotal battleground in the national political landscape.

Progressive Democrats are entering competitive Senate primaries amid significant party divisions, with Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Texas campaign highlighting ideological rifts that could impact the 2026 elections.

As the Democratic Party grapples with internal divisions following disappointing election results in 2024, progressive candidates are stepping into the fray for the highly competitive Senate primaries of 2026. Among them is Rep. Jasmine Crockett from Texas, whose campaign is drawing attention to the ideological splits within the party.

Republicans are seizing on Crockett’s entry into the race, viewing it as evidence that Democrats are shifting too far left to appeal to voters in red and purple states. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina remarked, “The Democratic Party, they’re in shambles everywhere around the country — and no place more obvious than Texas. Jasmine getting in this race is great news.”

Despite being dismissed by former President Donald Trump as “low IQ,” Crockett has cultivated a substantial following on social media, which may give her the visibility needed to influence the race significantly. However, her campaign has not yet responded to requests for comment.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is defending his Senate seat, expressed his satisfaction with Crockett’s candidacy, stating, “She can’t win, so I’m really happy she’s decided to run.” This sentiment reflects a broader Republican strategy that positions progressive candidates as liabilities for the Democratic Party.

While some Democrats see Texas as a potential pickup opportunity for the party, moderate voices within the party are skeptical about the long-term benefits of a progressive candidate like Crockett. Democratic strategist Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist group Welcome, recently published a report titled “Deciding to Win,” which cautions that embracing far-left positions could alienate crucial swing voters.

“Any Democrat who can do math should be worried,” Kerr told Fox News Digital, emphasizing that the implications of a progressive candidate extend beyond a single race. He warned that such a strategy could damage the party’s overall brand and hinder down-ballot candidates.

Crockett has garnered attention for her controversial remarks, including calling Texas Governor Greg Abbott “Governor Hot Wheels” and referring to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in unflattering terms during a House Oversight Committee hearing. Kerr noted that statements like these could further entrench the perception of Democrats as out of touch with mainstream voters.

“When you explicitly say we don’t need Trump voters to win, you’re not only denying mass, you’re denying an opportunity for voters to consider Democrats for other races and in the future,” Kerr added. He urged centrists to engage more actively in the political landscape, mirroring the energy of progressive activists.

Republicans have adopted a narrative that links Crockett’s candidacy to a broader trend of leftward movement within the Democratic Party. Scott stated, “All across the country, what we’re seeing is Jasmine is being repeated, replicated all across the country. Socialism is in vogue in the Democrat Party. It is a sad day around the country for those who believe that the Democrat Party was going to have a comeback. They’re not coming back. We’re going to win, keep the majority, expand the majority all across the map.”

Despite these Republican claims, the Democratic Party has asserted that it remains on the offensive, citing recent gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as a competitive special election in Tennessee. However, Scott countered that the presence of progressive candidates in Democratic primaries illustrates the party’s leftward shift.

“The Democrats, you look at who’s in their primaries – cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs,” Scott said, referencing the competitive Democratic field in Michigan, which includes state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and other progressive figures.

Cornyn echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the Democratic Party has become dominated by its left wing. He pointed to the successful campaign of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani as indicative of this trend, claiming that even established leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been influenced by progressive elements within the party.

While the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has not publicly responded to these criticisms, it maintains that its focus is on winning a Democratic Senate majority. DSCC spokesperson Maeve Coyle stated, “We’ve created a path to do that this cycle by recruiting formidable candidates and expanding the map, building strong general election infrastructure, and disqualifying Republican opponents.”

Democratic commentator Kaivan Shroff, who has ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign, argued that primaries can be beneficial for the party, provided they do not devolve into divisive conflicts. He praised Texas state Rep. James Talarico for committing to a respectful primary process with Crockett.

“I think there’s a great case that it’s a net positive, even win or lose, that Crockett is in this race,” Shroff said, emphasizing the importance of focusing on policy debates rather than personal attacks.

As the political landscape continues to evolve, the Democratic Party faces the challenge of navigating its internal divisions while appealing to a broader electorate. Shroff noted the absence of clear leadership to guide candidates through these ideological crossroads, a role that former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once filled effectively.

The upcoming Senate primaries will not only test the strength of progressive candidates like Crockett but also the Democratic Party’s ability to unify and present a cohesive message to voters ahead of the pivotal 2026 elections, according to Fox News Digital.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has dismissed a recent Vanity Fair profile as a biased portrayal of President Donald Trump’s second term, emphasizing the article’s selective omissions and lack of context.

WASHINGTON, DC – Susie Wiles, the White House Chief of Staff, strongly criticized a Vanity Fair profile published on December 16 that examined the internal dynamics and crises during President Donald Trump’s second term. Wiles labeled the piece a “disingenuously framed hit piece,” arguing that it ignored essential context and selectively omitted comments to depict the administration as chaotic.

The article, authored by Chris Whipple and titled “Susie Wiles, JD Vance, and the ‘Junkyard Dogs’: The White House Chief of Staff on Trump’s Second Term,” is a two-part profile that draws from months of interviews with Wiles.

In the profile, Wiles candidly discussed her experience working for Trump, describing the president as having “an alcoholic’s personality,” despite his reputation as a teetotaler. She acknowledged that many of Trump’s actions during his second term were motivated by a desire for revenge.

The Vanity Fair piece positions Wiles at the center of significant decisions that have purportedly expanded presidential power, including the deployment of National Guard troops, immigration enforcement, and various foreign policy actions. It raises questions about whether Wiles serves to restrain Trump or fully supports his approach. “The question around Wiles’s tenure under Trump has been whether she will do anything to restrain him,” the article posits.

The profile features on-the-record comments from senior officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio commended Wiles’s relationship with Trump, describing it as “an earned trust,” while JD Vance characterized her role as a facilitator of the president’s agenda. CNN noted that Wiles has maintained Trump’s confidence partly by managing a functional West Wing that does not attempt to curb the president’s impulses.

The article recounts various episodes, including debates over tariffs and immigration enforcement, as well as the restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development and its implications for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Wiles is quoted as acknowledging disagreements with some actions while emphasizing the importance of execution. “I will concede that we’ve got to look harder at our process for deportation,” she remarked at one point.

On the topic of tariffs, Wiles described significant internal divisions, stating, “There was a huge disagreement over whether [tariffs were] a good idea.” She explained that advisers were instructed to align with Trump’s direction, saying, “This is where we’re going to end up. So, figure out how you can work into what he’s already thinking.”

The profile also delves into Wiles’s management style and her closeness to power. “There’s the president, and then there’s whoever the three high-ranking people are on the sofa,” she explained regarding Oval Office events. “And then there’s a chair at the corner of the sofa, which is my chair.”

Wiles’s response to the Vanity Fair article underscores her commitment to her role and the complexities of navigating the Trump administration’s internal landscape, as she continues to play a pivotal role in shaping policy and strategy.

According to Vanity Fair, Wiles’s insights provide a rare glimpse into the inner workings of a presidency marked by controversy and power struggles.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has summoned Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang to testify regarding President Trump’s approval of AI chip sales to China, raising concerns over national security and technological leadership.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is taking a stand against President Donald Trump by calling on Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to testify before Congress. This request comes in response to Trump’s recent announcement that he would greenlight the sale of Nvidia’s second-most advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chip to China.

Warren expressed her concerns during a press conference, questioning whether Trump would “muzzle his own Justice Department because he does not want Americans to know that he is selling out our national security?” This statement underscores her apprehension regarding the implications of exporting advanced technology to foreign nations.

The senator’s call for testimony follows a significant policy shift that allows high-performance AI hardware to be sold internationally under U.S. export regulations. Warren emphasized the necessity of Congressional oversight to ensure that these advanced chips are not utilized in ways that could jeopardize U.S. technological leadership or compromise sensitive applications.

In response to these concerns, White House spokesman Kush Desai clarified the administration’s position. He stated, “There’s an obvious difference between chips being illegally smuggled to unknown buyers without regulatory oversight and chips being exported following national security inspections to specifically designated end users.”

The U.S. government recently approved the export of Nvidia’s H200 artificial intelligence chips to China, marking a notable change in long-standing export controls on advanced semiconductor technology. The H200 is a high-performance AI accelerator designed for complex machine learning and data center workloads. This decision allows Nvidia to sell these chips to approved Chinese customers, contingent upon U.S. government licensing and oversight.

Trump’s policy change includes a provision for the U.S. government to collect a 25% share of the revenue generated from these sales as part of the export framework. Nvidia has indicated that China constitutes a relatively small segment of its advanced chip business and that all exports will adhere to licensing requirements.

This move represents a partial reversal of previous export restrictions that prohibited the shipment of H200-class GPUs to China due to national security concerns, although the most advanced chips remain off-limits. Nvidia has reiterated that sales of the H200 to China will still require a U.S. government license and has characterized the overall share of chips sold to China as a minor percentage compared to those sold to U.S. customers.

As companies like Nvidia operate at the cutting edge of innovation, their products can have far-reaching implications beyond commercial markets, affecting global competitiveness, supply chains, and national defense capabilities. Policymakers face the challenge of balancing economic benefits with national security considerations while striving to maintain technological leadership.

Warren’s call for Congressional oversight highlights the critical role lawmakers play in ensuring that commercial interests do not undermine strategic priorities. The potential impact of Congressional hearings, public scrutiny, and future policy changes on subsequent decisions regarding AI hardware exports remains uncertain.

As AI hardware continues to evolve and become more widely distributed, nations must navigate not only domestic regulations but also the broader implications of exports on global security, economic stability, and technological ecosystems. Collaboration among industry leaders, government officials, and international partners is essential to establish safeguards that prevent misuse, promote innovation, and ensure fair competition.

According to The American Bazaar, the unfolding situation emphasizes the need for vigilance in the face of rapidly advancing technology and its potential effects on national security.

California Congressman Dave Min has endorsed Dr. Tina Shah in her campaign for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, emphasizing the need for healthcare reform and accessible care.

California Congressman Dave Min (CA-47) publicly endorsed Dr. Tina Shah on December 11 as she campaigns for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District. Dr. Shah, a practicing physician, announced her candidacy in July 2025, citing the urgent need to address the broken healthcare system in the United States.

“I’m running for Congress because America is in critical condition and enough is enough,” Dr. Shah stated. “As a physician, I took an oath to first do no harm, but when I go to work in the Intensive Care Unit, I’m up against a system that is designed to make patients broke and sicker, prioritize insurance companies’ profits above all else, and burn out a workforce trying to save lives.”

Dr. Shah, who is triple board-certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, and critical care medicine, grew up in New Jersey. She is challenging Republican incumbent Tom Kean Jr., who has been criticized for casting the deciding vote in Congress for significant cuts to Medicaid.

“Career politicians like Tom Kean Jr. have done nothing to lower healthcare costs or expand access to care,” Dr. Shah remarked. “Instead, he’s dodging his constituents while casting the deciding vote to gut Medicaid and attacking access to essential care, including abortion, in New Jersey.”

The Center for Politics has identified New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District as one of the few “toss-up” races in the country. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has also included Kean Jr. in their 2026 “Districts in Play” list, highlighting the competitive nature of this election.

“I am excited to endorse Dr. Tina Shah for Congress in New Jersey’s 7th District,” Congressman Min said. “Tina’s experience taking care of patients on the frontlines in the ICU and working to deliver affordable and accessible healthcare will serve New Jersey and our whole country well. Like me, she is the child of Asian immigrants, and so she knows firsthand the importance of standing up for our core values and building the economic opportunity that defines the American Dream. She is exactly the kind of fighter we need in Congress right now.”

Dr. Shah expressed her gratitude for Congressman Min’s support, acknowledging his track record of winning tough races and delivering for his community. “I’m excited to flip this seat with his support and join in the work to ensure the American Dream is accessible to all,” she said.

She also voiced concerns regarding the influence of public figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Trump administration, stating, “They are actively gutting lifesaving medical research and putting vaccine deniers in charge of our vaccine system. If we keep going down this road, there’s only one outcome: people will get hurt. What we do next is critical. I’m running for Congress to fix what is fundamentally broken and stand up for my patients, my neighbors, my community, and New Jersey.”

Dr. Shah’s campaign is gaining momentum as she seeks to address the pressing healthcare issues facing her constituents and the nation.

According to India Currents, the endorsement from Congressman Min underscores the significance of Dr. Shah’s candidacy in the upcoming election.

CAIR Florida plans to sue Governor Ron DeSantis after he labeled the organization a “foreign terrorist group” in an executive order, igniting a legal and political controversy.

The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has announced its intention to file a lawsuit against Governor Ron DeSantis following his recent executive order that designates the Muslim civil rights organization as a “foreign terrorist organization.”

During a news conference, Hiba Rahim, the deputy executive director of CAIR Florida, described the governor’s order as an attack rooted in conspiracy theories. She drew parallels to historical efforts that targeted various immigrant communities in the United States, including Jewish, Irish, and Italian Americans.

“We are very proud to defend the founding principles of our Constitution, to defend free speech,” Rahim stated. “We are proud to defend democracy, and we are proud to be America first.”

Rahim further asserted that DeSantis’s support for Israel influenced the decision to label CAIR as a terrorist organization, claiming that the group’s activism had caused “discomfort” for the U.S. ally. She emphasized that CAIR does not intend to back down in the face of this designation.

In response, Governor DeSantis defended his executive order, asserting that his administration had sufficient grounds for the designation. He welcomed CAIR’s legal challenge, describing the action as “a long time coming.”

Alongside CAIR, DeSantis’s order also identifies the Muslim Brotherhood as a “foreign terrorist organization.” This move follows a recent executive order from former President Donald Trump, which initiated a federal process to consider designating certain chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood in a similar manner.

DeSantis indicated that he anticipates Florida lawmakers will pursue related legislation when the legislature reconvenes in January, calling the executive order “the beginning” of a broader initiative.

Under DeSantis’s directive, state agencies are prohibited from awarding contracts, employment, or funds to CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, or any organizations deemed to have materially supported them.

During the Tampa news conference, attorney Miranda Margolis criticized the executive order, arguing that DeSantis had overstepped his authority by unilaterally designating a nonprofit organization as a terrorist group.

“This designation is without legal or factual basis and constitutes a dangerous escalation of anti-Muslim political rhetoric,” Margolis stated.

Florida’s decision follows a similar proclamation made by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, which has also faced legal challenges from CAIR. The organization argues that Abbott’s designation violates both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law. Muslim and interfaith organizations in Texas have urged Abbott to rescind his order.

It is important to note that state-level designations do not carry the same legal weight as federal Foreign Terrorist Organization classifications, which can only be issued by the U.S. State Department.

CAIR contends that the Florida executive order infringes upon its First Amendment rights and due-process protections, asserting that terrorism designations should fall under federal jurisdiction rather than state power.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill express differing views on prioritizing U.S. citizens versus drug traffickers amid scrutiny of the Trump administration’s military actions against drug cartels in the Caribbean.

As scrutiny intensifies regarding the Trump administration’s military actions targeting suspected cartel members in the Caribbean, lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been asked to weigh the importance of U.S. citizen victims against that of drug traffickers.

Republican lawmakers, such as Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana, expressed a clear stance. “I can’t speak for anybody else, but my top concern is American citizens, their lives, their health. So, for me, it’s an easy choice. Kill drug dealers, save Americans,” Sheehy stated.

In contrast, Democratic lawmakers offered more nuanced perspectives on the issue. Representative Johnny Olszewski from Maryland emphasized the need to combat drug trafficking while adhering to legal standards. “Look, I fully support doing whatever we can within the legal means to make sure that we’re stopping drug trafficking,” Olszewski said. He acknowledged the importance of addressing the victims of drug violence, stating, “We should absolutely be concerned about the victims of drug trafficking and people who have lost their lives to drug violence.”

Olszewski further elaborated on the need for transparency regarding military actions. “We support all efforts to interdict, arrest, and hold accountable those attempting to smuggle drugs into this country. However, we have a rule of law, and we have rules of engagement for a reason. And so, we need to make sure that we have full transparency in terms of how these strikes are happening,” he said. He also raised concerns about the legality of the administration’s drug boat strikes, suggesting they could potentially violate laws and even constitute a war crime. “So, it merits full investigation; it merits the details being released,” he added.

Representative Adam Smith from Washington pushed back against the framing of the question, questioning the effectiveness of such military actions. “Is this going to do anything to truly help them?” he asked. “Cocaine’s still flowing, the demand is still there.” Smith pointed out the complexities of addressing drug trafficking, emphasizing the need for due process. “You see a drug dealer on the street, that’s a bad person. That person is selling drugs. Let’s say they’re selling actual fentanyl, not the cocaine that we’re hitting here. Would you support allowing anyone to execute that person who wants to on the spot?” he queried. “I care about selling drugs. I don’t want a fascist regime that gets to decide who they can kill when they want to kill them without any check on that power.”

Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island highlighted the need for a balanced approach to tackling drug distribution. “We have to do our best to disrupt drug distribution. Also, we have to invest in drug health care and drug education, et cetera. We have to do all the things. The real question is, how do you do it right?” When asked if the government should prioritize drug victims over traffickers, Reed responded, “I’ve commented and thank you for asking,” before departing.

In contrast, Republican lawmakers maintained a more unified stance in favor of aggressive actions against drug traffickers. Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia stated, “If it disrupts the flow of one drug coming into West Virginia, I’m all for it.” She emphasized the severe impact of drug-related issues in her state, noting, “A lot of deaths from fentanyl, from overdoses. So, I’m supportive of whatever the president can do to end the flow of fentanyl.” Capito also expressed confidence in the intelligence supporting these military strikes.

Representative Glenn Grothman echoed this sentiment, asserting that the administration’s actions are necessary. “For too long, politicians have been satisfied to have a hundred thousand Americans die every year of drug overdoses. Finally, President Trump has stepped up to the plate and said, ‘No more,’” Grothman stated. He added, “If you’re going to attack our country, and these people know full well Americans are dying because of what they’re doing. If you’re going to attack our country, we’re going to fight back; about time.”

The debate among lawmakers reflects broader concerns about the balance between addressing drug trafficking and ensuring adherence to legal and ethical standards in military operations. As the situation evolves, the implications of these discussions will likely continue to resonate in both political and public spheres, shaping future policies and actions.

According to Fox News, the differing views among lawmakers highlight the complexities of addressing drug trafficking while prioritizing the safety and rights of U.S. citizens.

No sparks flew during the meeting between New York’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Donald Trump, despite their past insults, as they found common ground in a surprising conversation.

In a meeting that surprised many, New York’s mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and former President Donald Trump set aside their past insults to engage in a surprisingly amicable conversation. Mamdani, who has previously labeled Trump a “Fascist despot,” was met with a warm reception from the Queens-born real estate mogul.

During their encounter, Trump praised Mamdani for running an “incredible race” against formidable opponents. He expressed his willingness to live in New York City under a Mayor Mamdani, a statement that seemed to resonate with the newly elected official.

As reporters pressed Mamdani on whether he would retract his previous comments about Trump being a “despot” and an “authoritarian,” Trump interjected, suggesting that he had been called worse. “I’ve been called much worse than a despot, and so it’s not that insulting,” he said, predicting that Mamdani might reconsider his stance after they began working together.

When Mamdani hesitated to affirm his view of Trump as a “fascist,” Trump jovially encouraged him to simply say yes, which Mamdani did, albeit with a blush. Following the meeting, Trump described their discussion as “very productive,” noting that they agreed on more issues than he had anticipated.

Later, Trump took to Truth Social to share his thoughts on the meeting, stating, “It was a Great Honor meeting Zohran Mamdani, the new Mayor of New York City!” He accompanied his post with nine photographs of the two together, showcasing a moment of camaraderie.

In contrast to the warmth of his meeting with Mamdani, Trump was less than pleased with questions from the press regarding sensitive topics. As he prepared to welcome Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Trump confronted a Bloomberg News correspondent who inquired about his reluctance to release files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. “Quiet. Quiet, piggy,” he admonished, dismissing her question about the potential incriminating nature of the files.

Four days later, Trump again clashed with the media, this time with an ABC News reporter who questioned the crown prince about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump defended the prince, stating, “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.”

As the Society of Professional Journalists condemned Trump’s remarks, the White House defended him, asserting that he was simply being frank. His press secretary claimed that Trump was known for calling out “fake news” and expressed frustration with reporters who spread misinformation, though she did not specify what that misinformation was.

Amidst the controversy, Trump rolled out the red carpet for the crown prince, hosting a lavish quasi-state dinner that included a military flyover and appearances by soccer stars and billionaires from the tech and finance sectors. Trump claimed that Saudi Arabia would invest up to $1 trillion in the United States, promising “jobs, lots of jobs” as a result.

Critics argued that the visit benefited Saudi Arabia more than the U.S., with reports indicating that the crown prince secured advanced military technology and enhanced legitimacy in exchange for promised investments.

Trump continued his trend of targeting Democrats, calling for the arrest of six Democratic lawmakers who had urged military and intelligence personnel to disobey illegal orders. He labeled their actions as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL,” suggesting that they should be “ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL.” He further escalated his rhetoric by claiming that such behavior was “punishable by DEATH!” and shared a post that proclaimed, “HANG THEM. GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!!”

As outrage grew among Democrats, the White House countered that Trump had never issued an illegal order and insisted that he was not threatening death.

Despite criticisms suggesting that Trump was losing support among his base, he sought to connect with voters at a McDonald’s summit, branding himself as “the VERY FIRST former McDonald’s fry cook ever to become President of the United States.” He reminisced about his brief stint at the fast-food chain during his presidential campaign.

In a lighter moment, Trump met with Portuguese football star Cristiano Ronaldo, sharing an AI-generated video of their interaction in the Oval Office. Trump described Ronaldo as a “GREAT GUY” and expressed his enjoyment of their meeting, showcasing his ability to blend politics with celebrity culture.

As the former president continues to navigate a complex political landscape, his interactions with figures like Mamdani and the crown prince reveal a blend of camaraderie and controversy that characterizes his approach to leadership.

Source: Original article

President Trump claims Chicago residents are calling for federal assistance following a violent riot in the city that left eight injured and one dead over the weekend.

President Donald Trump stated on Saturday that residents of Chicago are urging him to “bring in Trump” as the city grapples with a surge in crime. This statement follows a violent riot that erupted in the downtown area, resulting in multiple injuries to police officers and several children being shot.

During the unrest, which occurred in the Chicago Loop, at least eight teenagers were shot, one of whom later died from their injuries. The riot began around 10 p.m. on Friday, shortly after a Christmas tree lighting ceremony near State and Randolph streets, according to reports from FOX 32 Chicago.

Trump took to Truth Social to express his concerns, writing, “Massive crime and rioting in the Chicago Loop area. Multiple Police Officers attacked and badly injured. 300 people rioting, 6 victims shot, one critical and one DEAD.” He criticized Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for refusing federal assistance, claiming, “The people are chanting, BRING IN TRUMP!!!”

City Alderman Brian Hopkins, representing Chicago’s 2nd Ward, reported that approximately 300 juveniles participated in the riot, during which they attacked officers with mace and stun guns. At least one officer was hospitalized due to injuries sustained during the chaos.

Among the shooting victims were a 13-year-old, two 14-year-olds, a 15-year-old, a 16-year-old, and a 17-year-old. Tragically, a 14-year-old boy later succumbed to his injuries at a hospital. An 18-year-old man was also reported to have been wounded in the incident.

The violence in Chicago comes on the heels of another alarming incident involving a man with a lengthy criminal history. Lawrence Reed, 50, has been accused of setting a woman on fire while on a Chicago train. Officials described Reed as someone who “had no business being on the streets,” and he faces charges related to terrorism and violence against a mass transportation system.

Despite a history of arrests—at least a dozen since 2017, including charges of felony aggravated arson and multiple instances of battery—a judge released Reed back into the community with an ankle monitor, following prosecutors’ requests to keep him detained.

Mayor Johnson characterized the train attack as an “isolated incident,” but the recent events have raised serious concerns about public safety in the city. Local business owners have voiced frustration over the leadership’s handling of crime, with some calling for a return to law and order.

As the situation continues to unfold, the calls for federal intervention in Chicago’s crime crisis grow louder, with residents expressing their desire for a change in leadership and strategy to address the escalating violence.

According to FOX News, the unrest and subsequent calls for help highlight the ongoing challenges faced by city officials in managing crime and ensuring the safety of their constituents.

Source: Original article

Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Senator Elizabeth Warren have introduced the EXPERTS Act to combat corporate lobbying and restore transparency in federal rulemaking.

WASHINGTON, DC – On November 20, Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled new legislation aimed at addressing the growing concerns surrounding corporate influence in government and the erosion of federal regulatory frameworks. The proposed bill, known as the Experts Protect Effective Rules, Transparency, and Stability Act, or EXPERTS Act, seeks to enhance transparency, rebuild public trust, and reinforce expert authority in the federal rulemaking process.

The lawmakers contend that the bill is a necessary response to what they describe as the ongoing dismantling of regulatory safeguards initiated during the Trump administration. These safeguards are intended to ensure that regulations serve the public interest rather than corporate interests.

“Many Americans are taught in civics classes that Congress passes a law and that’s it, but the reality is that any major legislation enacted must also be implemented and enforced by the executive branch to become a reality,” Jayapal stated. She emphasized the importance of protecting public safety, warning that systems designed for this purpose are being compromised. “At a time when corporations and CEOs have outsized power, it is critical that we ensure that public interest is protected. This bill will level the playing field to ensure that laws passed actually work for the American people.”

Warren echoed Jayapal’s sentiments, asserting that the regulatory process has increasingly favored corporate interests over those of the general public. “Giant corporations and their armies of lobbyists shouldn’t get to manipulate how our laws are implemented,” she remarked. “While Donald Trump keeps selling away influence over our government, we’re fighting to ensure the rules are being written to help working Americans, not corporate interests.”

The introduction of the EXPERTS Act follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine. This doctrine had previously instructed courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. The lawmakers argue that the reversal of this doctrine grants courts broader authority to invalidate expert-driven regulations, thereby undermining essential protections related to worker safety, financial fairness, and environmental standards.

According to Jayapal and Warren, the current rulemaking process disproportionately favors industry lobbyists, who can exert significant influence over regulatory outcomes. They point out that companies often engage in private lobbying of regulators, fund studies that may appear scientific, and distort the anticipated impacts of stronger oversight. In contrast, the general public has limited opportunities to influence these processes.

The EXPERTS Act aims to reverse this trend through a series of comprehensive reforms. Key provisions of the bill include restoring Chevron-style deference, ensuring full transparency regarding the funding of studies submitted during the rulemaking process, and requiring public explanations when agencies withdraw proposed rules. Additionally, the legislation seeks to expedite rulemaking by eliminating private parties from the negotiated rulemaking process, reinstating a six-year limit for challenging agency actions in court, and creating new mechanisms to empower ordinary citizens. This includes imposing fines on corporations that submit misleading claims and establishing an Office of the Public Advocate.

By introducing the EXPERTS Act, Jayapal and Warren hope to create a regulatory environment that prioritizes the needs of the public over corporate interests, ultimately fostering a more equitable and transparent governance framework.

Source: Original article

President Donald Trump criticized ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce during a White House exchange, calling her a “terrible reporter” and questioning the network’s broadcast license.

President Donald Trump took aim at ABC News correspondent Mary Bruce on Tuesday, labeling her a “terrible reporter” during a contentious exchange at the White House. His comments came in response to Bruce’s probing questions regarding the appropriateness of the president’s family engaging in business dealings in Saudi Arabia while he remains in office.

Bruce, who serves as ABC’s chief White House correspondent, was one of the select reporters permitted into the Oval Office for a meeting between Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. During the session, she confronted the crown prince about U.S. intelligence assessments that implicated him in the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi national and Virginia resident known for his critical stance toward the Saudi government.

“Your Royal Highness, the U.S. intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9/11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office. Why should Americans trust you? And the same to you, Mr. President,” Bruce asked, directing her questions to both leaders.

As Bruce continued to press for answers, Trump interjected, asking which outlet she represented before dismissing ABC as “fake news.” He defended his family’s business ties in Saudi Arabia and downplayed the intelligence community’s conclusions regarding the crown prince’s involvement in Khashoggi’s death, stating that “a lot of people didn’t like” Khashoggi.

In response to Bruce’s inquiries, Prince Mohammed admitted that Khashoggi’s killing was a painful incident and described it as “a huge mistake.” However, Trump’s frustration with Bruce escalated as she continued to challenge him. After her third question, which focused on why the White House was waiting for Congress to act before releasing information related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s correspondence, Trump expressed his discontent.

“It’s not the question that I mind,” Trump stated. “It’s your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. It’s the way you ask these questions.”

After briefly addressing the Epstein question, Trump returned to his criticism of Bruce, claiming that “people are wise to your hoax.” He further suggested that ABC’s broadcast license should be reconsidered, asserting, “I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong.”

Trump referenced FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, whose agency is responsible for overseeing licensing for local broadcast stations, implying that the chairman should investigate the network’s credibility. He added, “When you’re 97% negative to Trump, and then Trump wins the election in a landslide, that means, obviously, your news is not credible. And you’re not credible as a reporter.”

ABC News did not respond to Trump’s remarks on that day. In contrast, Bloomberg News reacted after Trump referred to one of its reporters, Catherine Lucey, as “piggy” during a recent question-and-answer session aboard Air Force One. Reuters also shared a video clip of Trump calling Lucey “quiet piggy” on its Instagram account.

As the exchange between Trump and Bruce unfolded, it underscored the ongoing tensions between the president and the media, particularly regarding the coverage of his administration and its dealings with foreign leaders.

Source: Original article

President Trump is urging House Republicans to vote for the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, calling the controversy a “Democrat hoax” and asserting he has “nothing to hide.”

President Donald Trump is calling on House Republicans to support the release of files associated with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. He insists he has “nothing to hide” and accuses Democrats of leveraging the Epstein case to distract from Republican achievements.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump encouraged GOP lawmakers to vote in favor of making the documents public, labeling the ongoing controversy a “Democrat hoax perpetrated by radical left lunatics.” He emphasized the need to move past the issue, claiming it serves as a diversion from the successes of the Republican Party.

“As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide,” Trump wrote. “It’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.'”

Trump referenced the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) earlier release of thousands of pages of Epstein-related documents. He also pointed out that the DOJ is investigating potential connections between Epstein and various “Democrat operatives,” including former President Bill Clinton, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

“The House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE!” Trump stated. He further expressed his desire for Republicans to focus on key issues such as the economy, affordability, and recent successes in reducing inflation. “All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT,” he added.

Trump highlighted several Republican achievements, including historic tax cuts, significant investments in America, military rebuilding, border security, and efforts to address issues related to transgender participation in sports.

He also suggested that if Democrats had any incriminating evidence against him, it would have emerged before the last presidential election. “Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive, and if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory,” Trump remarked.

Trump cautioned that some members of the Republican Party are being “used” and urged them to focus on the party’s accomplishments rather than falling into what he termed the Epstein “TRAP.” He concluded with a rallying cry, “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

In related news, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on Friday that the DOJ would investigate prominent Democrats following the revelation of new emails indicating ties to Epstein. In a post on X, Bondi stated that Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, would lead the investigation. “Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country,” Bondi wrote, assuring that the Department would pursue the matter with urgency and integrity to provide answers to the American public.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House, Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, and Larry Summers for comments regarding these developments.

Source: Original article

The BBC has issued an apology to Donald Trump for misleading edits in a Panorama episode, which suggested he incited violence during his January 6, 2021, speech, but rejected his demand for damages.

The BBC has formally apologized to former U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the editing of his speech from January 6, 2021, in a 2024 episode of Panorama. The edits unintentionally created the misleading impression that Trump directly incited violence during the Capitol riots. Despite this apology, the BBC has declined Trump’s request for $1 billion in damages, citing a lack of legal grounds for a defamation claim.

Following an internal review, the BBC acknowledged that the edited segment made it appear as though Trump’s remarks were a continuous excerpt, rather than a compilation of different parts of his speech. This misrepresentation led viewers to believe he was calling for violent action. In light of this, the broadcaster confirmed it would not rebroadcast the controversial program.

The situation escalated when it was discovered that a previous broadcast of Newsnight in 2022 had similarly edited the same speech in a misleading manner, prompting further criticism of the BBC’s editorial standards. This series of events ultimately resulted in the resignation of BBC Director General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness.

In response to demands from Trump’s legal team, the BBC’s lawyers outlined five key defenses in a letter. They argued that the program was broadcast only in the U.K. and did not reach U.S. audiences, that the clip did not harm Trump’s reputation as he was re-elected shortly after the events, and that the editing was intended to condense a lengthy speech without malice. Additionally, they noted that the contested clip represented only a small portion of an hour-long program that included multiple viewpoints, some of which were favorable to Trump. The lawyers also pointed out that political commentary is afforded strong protection under U.S. defamation laws.

BBC Chair Samir Shah personally apologized to the White House, expressing regret over the editing error while maintaining that no defamation had occurred. A spokesperson for the BBC emphasized the organization’s commitment to high editorial standards and indicated that the matter remains under review.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump characterized the edit as a “butchering” of his remarks and accused the BBC of misleading the public. His legal team has set a deadline for the BBC to retract the documentary, issue a full apology, and provide compensation. However, as of now, no formal lawsuit has been filed.

This incident has also sparked discussions about BBC board appointments and the corporation’s editorial independence. Critics have raised concerns regarding potential political influences on the BBC. Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has called for government intervention to safeguard the BBC’s impartiality amid the legal threats it faces.

The BBC’s misstep regarding the January 6 speech highlights the delicate balance that media organizations must maintain between editorial judgment and accuracy, particularly when covering politically charged events. While the BBC has apologized for the error and has ceased airing the program, the ongoing dispute underscores persistent challenges related to public trust and media accountability.

Source: Original article

Former President Donald Trump has withdrawn his endorsement of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, labeling her a “ranting lunatic” and suggesting support for a primary challenger ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Former President Donald Trump announced on Friday night via Truth Social that he is rescinding his support for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, referring to her as a “ranting lunatic” and “Wacky Marjorie.” This marks a significant shift in their relationship, as Greene has been one of Trump’s staunchest allies since she entered Congress in 2021.

In his lengthy post, Trump accused the Georgia Republican of focusing on complaints rather than celebrating what he characterized as his administration’s “record achievements.” He claimed that Greene had expressed frustration over his lack of communication, stating, “She has told many people that she is upset that I don’t return her phone calls anymore.”

Trump’s comments come in the context of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, where he vowed to provide “Complete and Unyielding Support” to any conservative primary challenger who may emerge against Greene. He suggested that Greene had shifted “Far Left,” citing her recent appearance on the daytime talk show, *The View*.

In his post, Trump reflected on a poll he had sent to Greene, indicating that her chances of winning a Senate or gubernatorial race were slim without his endorsement. “It seemed to all begin when I sent her a Poll stating that she should not run for Senator, or Governor, she was at 12%, and didn’t have a chance (unless, of course, she had my Endorsement — which she wasn’t about to get!),” he wrote.

Greene quickly responded to Trump’s remarks on social media, asserting that he had attacked her and lied about their interactions. “I haven’t called him at all, but I did send these text messages today,” she stated on X, sharing screenshots of her messages. She suggested that her recent communications regarding the Epstein files may have triggered Trump’s outburst, claiming, “It’s astonishing really how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out that he actually goes to this level.”

In her response, Greene appeared to distance herself from Trump, emphasizing her commitment to her constituents and her faith. “I have supported President Trump with too much of my precious time, too much of my own money, and fought harder for him even when almost all other Republicans turned their back and denounced him,” she wrote. “But I don’t worship or serve Donald Trump. I worship God, Jesus is my savior, and I serve my district GA14 and the American people.”

Trump concluded his post by touting his administration’s accomplishments since the beginning of his second term in January, asserting that he had transformed the nation from a “DEAD Country” to the “HOTTEST” in the world within a year. He criticized Greene for her perceived negativity, stating, “all I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!”

This development could pave the way for potential challengers within Georgia’s Republican Party to consider running against Greene in her solidly Republican district. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding this situation.

Source: Original article

President Trump has signed legislation to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, providing funding through January 30 and addressing critical issues affecting federal workers and programs.

President Donald Trump has officially signed legislation that brings an end to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, which lasted more than 40 days. The new funding measure will keep the government operational through January 30, 2025.

On Monday, Trump indicated that the government would soon reopen, as the effects of the shutdown became increasingly severe. Federal workers faced missed paychecks, and air travel was disrupted due to staffing shortages among air traffic controllers.

The legislation maintains government funding at the same levels for the fiscal year 2025, allowing additional time for lawmakers to negotiate a more comprehensive appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. Importantly, the measure also secures funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports over 42 million Americans in purchasing groceries through a debit card system. This funding will continue through September.

In addition to reopening the government, the new measure reverses layoffs that the Trump administration had initiated earlier in October and ensures that employees will receive compensation for their time away from work.

The resolution comes after a prolonged stalemate between Senate Republicans and Democrats over a stopgap spending bill intended to fund the government through November 21. Following a funding lapse that began on October 1, the Senate passed the new legislation late Monday night with a 60-40 vote. Eight Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in supporting the measure.

The House of Representatives subsequently approved its version of the bill on Wednesday, facilitating the government’s reopening.

The shutdown’s fallout had reached critical levels, particularly at U.S. airports where air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers were required to work without pay. Many of these workers began calling in sick or seeking additional employment, leading to further staffing shortages and flight delays.

The impasse between Republicans and Democrats stemmed from disagreements over healthcare provisions included in the funding measure. Trump and Republican leaders accused Democrats of attempting to extend healthcare benefits to illegal immigrants, citing a provision that would repeal parts of Trump’s tax and domestic policy bill, which had reduced Medicaid eligibility for non-U.S. citizens.

Democrats countered these claims, asserting that their goal was to permanently extend certain Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025. Although the stopgap spending bill signed by Trump does not extend these subsidies, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has agreed to hold a vote in December on legislation to continue these credits.

However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., has not yet committed to supporting this arrangement in the House, leaving the future of healthcare funding uncertain.

As the government reopens, the focus will shift to addressing the underlying issues that led to the shutdown and ensuring that federal workers and essential services can operate without further disruptions.

Source: Original article

The House is poised to vote on a bipartisan bill aimed at ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, following its successful passage through a key committee.

The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on Wednesday on a measure to end the ongoing government shutdown, which has now lasted for 42 days. This follows the bill’s successful advancement through the House Rules Committee earlier in the morning.

The bipartisan agreement to reopen the federal government received unanimous support from Republicans in the committee, while all Democrats opposed it. The bill is now set to move to the full House, where sources familiar with discussions among GOP leaders indicate that it is expected to pass with strong Republican backing.

Clearing the House Rules Committee is a significant milestone in the effort to end the shutdown, which has become the longest in U.S. history, surpassing previous records by about a week. The committee’s hearing, which began on Tuesday evening, lasted more than six hours, concluding shortly after 1 a.m. on Wednesday.

During the hearing, Democrats attempted to introduce amendments related to COVID-19-era enhanced subsidies for Obamacare, which are set to expire at the end of the year. However, these attempts were unsuccessful. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made a notable appearance, advocating for his amendment to extend those subsidies for an additional three years.

The lengthy debate saw heated exchanges between members of both parties. Democrats accused Republicans of neglecting Americans’ healthcare needs and taking an extended “vacation” while their constituents suffered during the shutdown. In response, House Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., expressed her frustration, stating, “I am sick and tired of hearing you all say we had an eight-week vacation. I worked every day. I don’t know about you. I don’t want to hear another soul say that.”

Additionally, both Democrats and some Republicans criticized a provision in the funding bill that would allow GOP senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 over the alleged secret acquisition of their phone records during the investigation led by ex-Special Counsel Jack Smith. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, voiced concerns about the perception of this provision, suggesting it could be seen as self-serving.

Following the committee’s approval, the bill will undergo a “rule vote” in the House, a procedural step that, if successful, will allow for further debate on the legislation. A final vote is anticipated later on Wednesday, potentially sending the bill to President Donald Trump for his signature.

President Trump has indicated his support for the legislation, stating in comments to reporters on Monday, “We’ll be opening up our country very quickly,” when asked about the deal.

The Senate had previously broken a weeks-long deadlock on Monday night, passing the legislation with a 60-40 vote. This included support from eight Democrats who joined Republicans in the effort to reopen the government.

As the shutdown continues, travel disruptions have been reported at U.S. airports, with air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers working without pay since last month. Many of these employees have taken on second jobs to make ends meet, leading to staffing shortages and flight delays that threaten to impact the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.

Millions of Americans who depend on federal food assistance programs are also facing uncertainty amid the ongoing partisan disputes over funding. The proposed bill aims to extend federal funding levels for fiscal year 2025 through January 30, allowing negotiators additional time to reach a longer-term agreement for fiscal year 2026.

Furthermore, the legislation would advance funding for several key departments, including the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and military construction. These departments are part of a larger package of 12 individual bills that constitute Congress’ annual appropriations, collectively referred to as a “minibus.”

In a notable concession to Democrats, the deal would reverse federal layoffs that occurred during the Trump administration in October, ensuring that affected workers receive back pay for their time off. Additionally, a side deal reached in the Senate guarantees Senate Democrats a vote on legislation to extend the enhanced Obamacare subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year. However, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has not made a similar commitment for a vote in the House.

Source: Original article

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, and London’s Sadiq Khan share a faith and progressive vision, yet their political journeys highlight significant differences shaped by their unique cities.

New York City’s first Muslim mayor, Zohran Mamdani, has drawn considerable comparisons to London’s Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan. While both leaders share a progressive outlook and a Muslim identity, their political journeys reveal important differences. Critics have suggested that New York under Mamdani might follow “the way of London,” but the distinct political and social dynamics of the two cities mean that the parallels extend only so far.

Sadiq Khan, who has served as London’s mayor since 2016, is a seasoned politician well-versed in the pressures of governing a global city under intense scrutiny. He has faced persistent criticism and racist attacks, including harsh condemnation from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who labeled him a “stone cold loser” and falsely accused him of wanting to impose Sharia law. Khan responded to these attacks by branding Trump as “racist, sexist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.” Despite these challenges, Khan has successfully won three consecutive elections and has focused on improving transit, housing, and air quality in London.

In contrast, Zohran Mamdani, at 34, comes from a different background but shares Khan’s progressive vision. Born in Uganda to Indian immigrant parents and raised in the United States, Mamdani represents a new generation of grassroots activism and left-wing politics, heavily influenced by figures like Bernie Sanders. His campaign prioritized issues such as affordable housing, free childcare, and combating corruption. In his victory speech, Mamdani directly challenged Trump’s efforts to undermine his election, urging the city to reject divisiveness.

The BBC podcast titled “A Tale of Two Cities: London’s Lesson for New York’s First Muslim Mayor,” produced by Xandra Ellin, Valerio Esposito, and Cat Farnsworth, delves into these parallels in detail. The podcast features interviews with former BBC reporter Tim Donovan and Sadiq Khan himself, discussing the challenges of leading two of the world’s most diverse and dynamic metropolises. Khan emphasizes the importance of focusing on substantive policies rather than identity politics, a lesson that could prove beneficial for Mamdani as he navigates his new role.

Despite their shared religion and progressive values, Khan and Mamdani are confronted with unique political climates that will shape their leadership styles differently. Both have become targets of far-right rhetoric, yet their responses demonstrate resilience and a commitment to their cities. As Mamdani begins his tenure, the experiences of London offer valuable insights but also highlight that success will depend on navigating local challenges with strategy and coalition-building.

Source: Original article

Rep. Elise Stefanik received the World Jewish Congress’ highest honor while launching her campaign for New York governor, pledging to combat rising antisemitism in the state.

Rep. Elise Stefanik accepted the World Jewish Congress’ prestigious Theodor Herzl Award on Monday night, just days after announcing her candidacy for New York governor. During her speech at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan, she emphasized her commitment to fighting antisemitism and upholding what she described as “the very Western values that have shaped America.”

Stefanik received the award from Ronald Lauder, a businessman and former U.S. ambassador to Austria under President Ronald Reagan. The Theodor Herzl Award, established in 2012, is the highest honor given by the World Jewish Congress, recognizing individuals who embody Herzl’s vision for a secure and self-reliant Jewish community.

In her acceptance speech, Stefanik expressed gratitude to Lauder for his leadership and dedication to Jewish unity and security. “Under his leadership, the World Jewish Congress has carried forward Theodor Herzl’s vision — not only of a Jewish homeland, but of a Jewish people strong, self-reliant, and respected among the nations,” she stated.

Stefanik described the honor as “deeply humbling,” acknowledging the World Jewish Congress as a longstanding diplomatic voice and moral conscience for Jewish communities worldwide. She praised the organization for its efforts to combat antisemitism and strengthen ties between Israel and the global community of free nations.

Reflecting on her experiences in Congress, Stefanik recounted a notable 2023 hearing with the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania, where she posed a critical moral question regarding antisemitism. “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?” she asked. Her expectation for a straightforward answer was met with a troubling response: “it depends on the context.” She asserted that this exchange sparked a global reckoning and accountability in higher education regarding antisemitism.

As she turned her focus to New York, Stefanik declared the state “the epicenter of the battle for the very Western values that have shaped America.” She emphasized the urgency of addressing antisemitism, bigotry, and anti-Americanism, particularly in a state with a significant Jewish population. “Eighty years after Kristallnacht, we must not stay silent. I will continue to call out antisemitism,” she affirmed, noting that antisemitic incidents in New York reached an all-time high last year.

Stefanik’s remarks resonated with the audience, as she invoked Theodor Herzl’s legacy, stating, “My friends, Theodor Herzl’s story is not ancient history. That is the spirit I see in this room tonight — the spirit that built Israel, the spirit that has always animated the Jewish people, and the spirit that will save New York.”

The award ceremony came a day after billionaire philanthropist Miriam Adelson publicly endorsed Stefanik’s gubernatorial campaign during the Zionist Organization of America’s Justice Louis D. Brandeis Award Dinner. Adelson praised Stefanik for her efforts to confront antisemitism on college campuses, recalling her late husband Sheldon Adelson’s emphasis on moral conviction.

Stefanik, who serves as chairwoman of the House Republican Leadership, was also honored with the Zionist Organization of America’s Mortimer Zuckerman Maccabee Warrior Award for her advocacy against antisemitism. Adelson introduced her at the gala, calling her “a great leader” and commending her commitment to defending the Jewish people, Israel, and the Free World.

With her gubernatorial campaign officially launched, Stefanik is set to challenge Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in the 2026 election. Once critical of former President Donald Trump during his first presidential run, Stefanik has since become one of his most ardent supporters in Congress.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Gov. Hochul’s office for a comment regarding Stefanik’s campaign.

Source: Original article

Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized eight Senate Democrats for voting with Republicans on a continuing resolution, labeling it a harmful decision for working families.

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, has publicly condemned eight Senate Democrats who sided with Republicans in a recent procedural vote to advance a continuing resolution in the U.S. Senate. In a video posted to his X account, Sanders described the decision as “a very, very bad vote.”

During the vote, which took place on Sunday, Sanders expressed his disapproval, stating, “Tonight, 8 Democrats voted with the Republicans to allow them to go forward on this continuing resolution. And to my mind, this was a very, very bad vote.”

The continuing resolution was intended to provide temporary funding for the federal government and prevent a shutdown. However, Sanders argued that it included provisions that could lead to increased healthcare premiums, potential cuts to Medicaid, and tax benefits favoring high-income earners.

According to Sanders, the measure threatens to “raise healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling or quadrupling them.” He emphasized the burden this would place on families already struggling with high healthcare costs, stating, “People can’t afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare.”

Sanders further criticized the resolution for potentially jeopardizing Medicaid coverage for 15 million individuals, warning that this could result in approximately 50,000 preventable deaths each year. “All of that was done to give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1%,” he added.

Reflecting on the recent elections, Sanders noted, “As everybody knows, just on Tuesday, we had an election all over this country. And what the election showed is that the American people wanted us to stand up to Trumpism — to his war against working-class people, to his authoritarianism. That is what the American people wanted. But tonight, that is not what happened.”

In his video, Sanders framed the procedural vote as more than just a measure to keep the government operational; he viewed it as indicative of a broader policy direction that undermines healthcare protections and the interests of working-class Americans. “So we’ve got to go forward, do the best that we can to ensure and protect working-class people, to make sure that the United States not only does not throw people off of healthcare, but ends the absurdity of being the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people,” he asserted. “We have a lot of work to do, but to be honest with you, tonight was not a good night.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that if the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies established under the American Rescue Plan are allowed to expire, millions of Americans could face significantly higher marketplace premiums. A 2023 CBO analysis highlighted that the expiration of these expanded subsidies would lead to increased out-of-pocket costs for enrollees in ACA marketplaces.

Additionally, studies referenced by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), which Sanders chairs, have estimated that substantial cuts to Medicaid could result in tens of thousands of preventable deaths annually. A 2023 HELP Committee report on Sanders’ website cited peer-reviewed research published in Health Affairs and The Lancet Public Health, which found that losing Medicaid coverage is associated with higher mortality rates due to reduced access to preventive and emergency care.

Supporting this alarming trend, a letter from researchers at the Yale School of Public Health and the University of Pennsylvania’s Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics warned that proposed federal healthcare cuts could lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths each year.

Sanders’ remarks reflect his long-standing opposition to Republican budget proposals, which he argues disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of working Americans. His comments have been consistently echoed in press releases on his official website since March of this year.

Source: Original article

Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican Emilio González will face off in a runoff for Miami mayor on December 9, potentially making history with the election of the city’s first female mayor.

Miami’s mayoral race is set for a pivotal runoff on December 9, as Democratic County Commissioner Eileen Higgins and Republican candidate Emilio González advance from a crowded field of 13 candidates. The runoff was necessitated after no candidate secured more than 50% of the vote in the initial election.

Higgins and González will compete to succeed the term-limited Republican Mayor Francis Suarez. The runoff format is triggered when no candidate achieves the required majority, compelling the top two candidates to face off in a decisive election.

Eileen Higgins, who has served as a Miami-Dade County commissioner since 2018, represents several neighborhoods including Miami Beach, Downtown, Brickell, Coral Way, Little Havana, and West Flagler. Her diverse background includes roles as an engineer, marketing executive, and director of the Peace Corps in Belize, where she served starting in 2006. Additionally, Higgins has experience as a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. State Department.

During a recent debate on October 16, Higgins emphasized her commitment to a drama-free administration, stating, “There’s going to be no drama. There’s going to be no corruption. There’s going to be no yelling.” She pledged to focus on the needs of Miami residents, aiming to make the city “the best place on earth.”

Her campaign priorities include enhancing affordability, restoring trust in Miami City Hall by reducing bureaucratic hurdles, funding police and first responders, improving transportation, and protecting the environment, as outlined on her campaign website.

In contrast, González, who is backed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Rick Scott, has positioned himself as a reform candidate. He previously served as a bilingual surrogate for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and was involved in the transition team before becoming a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute.

González has focused his campaign on modernizing city services, cutting property taxes, easing regulations for small businesses, increasing police presence, and reducing government spending. At the debate, he remarked, “We need reform and we need reform bad,” highlighting the loss of public trust in local government. He expressed a commitment to public service, stating, “Public service and being mayor has to be vocational. It isn’t about making money, it isn’t about making my ego bigger.”

The mayoral race has not attracted the same level of national attention as other high-profile elections, such as those in New York or gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. However, it has been marked by political jabs and past scandals involving various candidates. In September, a Florida judge blocked a city plan to postpone the November election to 2026 without voter approval, a decision that followed a lawsuit initiated by González.

The upcoming runoff will not only determine the next mayor of Miami but also has the potential to make history by electing the city’s first female mayor. As the campaigns intensify, both candidates are expected to further clarify their visions for Miami’s future.

Source: Original article

Republican Congressman Rich McCormick advocates for a stronger partnership between India and the U.S., emphasizing the importance of maintaining close ties and cautioning against tariff increases.

WASHINGTON, DC – Republican Congressman Rich McCormick, co-chair of the India Caucus, has called for a stronger partnership between India and the United States, suggesting that their collaboration could lead to “another generation” of global peace.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Hudson Institute on November 3, McCormick emphasized the need for the Trump administration to keep allies like India “close” to the United States. He stated, “When you talk about India, and I’m the chair of the India Caucus, I love India. I think India and the United States pair up well into the future of the largest democracy and the wealthiest and oldest democracy. Pairing together could bring us together for another generation of peace that the world’s never seen, where you can have prosperity and wealth development.”

In addition to advocating for stronger ties, McCormick also provided advice regarding the Trump administration’s tariff policies toward India. He urged caution, noting that India has historically imposed tariffs averaging around 15 percent, while the U.S. has maintained a much lower rate of about 2 percent with no barriers. “That’s something that President Trump did very well, but we have to be careful,” he remarked.

McCormick praised India’s advancements in its space program, particularly highlighting its achievement in 2023 as the first country to successfully land a spacecraft near the dark side of the moon. He quipped, “A country that does things very well puts a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for $74 million. I always joke that we couldn’t even develop a building to talk about putting a spaceship on the dark side of the moon for that amount. We could do things so much better if we keep our friends close.”

Following a period of relative silence, many Republican lawmakers are now publicly reaffirming their support for India-U.S. relations. In recent weeks, at least six bipartisan letters and resolutions have been drafted, defending the interests of the Indian American community, reaffirming support for the India-U.S. partnership, and urging the administration to be accountable for its recent actions targeting New Delhi.

As discussions around international relations continue to evolve, McCormick’s remarks underscore the significance of maintaining strong diplomatic ties with India, particularly in the context of global peace and economic collaboration.

Source: Original article