Category: 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

Voters across the United States are heading to the polls for key elections on Tuesday, with the outcomes seen as a significant test of former President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.

As voters prepare to cast their ballots on Tuesday, the spotlight is on several key races across the country, including gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, as well as a high-profile mayoral contest in New York City. These elections are viewed as the first major test of former President Donald Trump’s ambitious second-term agenda, which has sparked considerable debate and division.

Nearly ten months into Trump’s second term, the elections are being closely monitored as indicators of the political landscape leading up to next year’s midterms. Trump, leveraging his influence, has urged Republican voters to participate, stating on social media, “FAILING TO VOTE TOMORROW IS THE SAME AS VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT.”

New Jersey and Virginia are the only states holding gubernatorial elections in the year following a presidential election, making their races particularly significant. Historically, these contests have attracted national attention and are often seen as bellwethers for the upcoming midterm elections, where the GOP will aim to defend its slim majorities in both the House and Senate.

In New Jersey, Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli is making his third consecutive bid for the governorship. After a narrow defeat to Democratic Governor Phil Murphy four years ago, Ciattarelli is optimistic about his chances this time around. Despite New Jersey’s Democratic-leaning voter base, Ciattarelli has gained momentum in recent weeks, closing the gap with his Democratic opponent, Representative Mikie Sherrill.

Trump’s support has been pivotal for Ciattarelli, who has received significant backing from the former president in the campaign’s final days. “We appreciate what the president is doing to get the base excited, and remind them that they got to vote,” Ciattarelli stated after a campaign stop in northern New Jersey. He emphasized the importance of voter turnout, asserting that “the future of our state hangs in the balance.”

However, Sherrill has consistently linked Ciattarelli to Trump, arguing that he has aligned himself closely with the former president’s policies. The race has been further complicated by a recent controversy involving the release of Sherrill’s military records, which were improperly redacted and included sensitive personal information. This incident has added another layer of complexity to an already contentious campaign.

In Virginia, the gubernatorial race has also been fraught with drama. Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman, was initially seen as the frontrunner against Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears. However, the race took a turn following the emergence of controversial texts from Democratic attorney general candidate Jay Jones, who faced backlash for comparing a Republican lawmaker to historical mass murderers.

Spanberger has been forced to defend her association with Jones, whose remarks have drawn widespread condemnation. During a recent debate, Earle-Sears seized the opportunity to link Spanberger to Jones, calling for her to denounce his candidacy. Spanberger, while denouncing Jones’s comments, did not distance herself from him, which could impact her campaign.

Meanwhile, the mayoral election in New York City is generating significant interest, particularly as 34-year-old democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani seeks to make history as the city’s first Muslim and millennial mayor. Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary earlier this year sent shockwaves through the political landscape, and he now faces challenges from former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent after resigning amid scandals four years ago.

Cuomo’s return to the political arena has raised eyebrows, and he is vying for a comeback against Mamdani and two-time Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. The dynamics of this race are further complicated by the recent withdrawal of incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who had been running for re-election as an independent but has since endorsed Cuomo.

In addition to these high-stakes races, voters in California will decide on a significant ballot measure regarding congressional redistricting. The proposed measure seeks to dismantle the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission, allowing the Democrat-controlled legislature to redraw congressional maps for the next decade. This move is seen as an effort to create additional Democratic-leaning districts in response to recent Republican gains in Texas.

Finally, three state Supreme Court justices in Pennsylvania are facing retention elections, which could shift the balance of power in a court that currently holds a Democratic majority. The outcome of these elections could have far-reaching implications for key issues such as voting rights and reproductive rights in the state.

As voters head to the polls, the stakes are high, and the outcomes of these contests could shape the political landscape for years to come. The results will not only reflect the current sentiments of the electorate but also serve as a precursor to the upcoming midterm elections.

According to Fox News, the outcomes of these races will be pivotal in determining the direction of both state and national politics.

Source: Original article

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu announces his candidacy for the 2026 Senate race in New Hampshire, aiming to succeed retiring Democrat Jeanne Shaheen.

Former Republican Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire is making a significant move to reclaim his seat in the U.S. Senate. On Wednesday, he officially announced his candidacy for the 2026 race to succeed retiring Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, marking his return to the political arena after nearly two decades in the private sector.

In a campaign launch video shared exclusively with Fox News Digital, Sununu expressed his concerns about the current state of Congress, describing it as “loud, dysfunctional, even angry.” He emphasized his desire to “calm the waters” and contribute to a more productive legislative environment.

Sununu, who previously served three terms in the Senate, first won election in 2002 by defeating then-Governor Shaheen. However, he lost to her in a rematch in 2008. With Shaheen’s announcement earlier this year that she would not seek re-election in the upcoming midterms, Republicans are eager to flip the seat as they aim to defend and potentially expand their Senate majority.

Reflecting on his decision to run again, Sununu stated, “Maybe you’re surprised that I’m running for the Senate again. I’m a bit surprised myself. Why would anyone subject themselves to everything going on there right now? Well, somebody has to step up and lower the temperature. Somebody has to get things done.”

Sununu is a well-known figure in New Hampshire politics, with a family legacy that includes his father, John H. Sununu, a former governor and chief of staff under President George H.W. Bush. His younger brother, Chris Sununu, currently serves as the state’s governor and has been re-elected multiple times.

However, Sununu will face competition for the GOP nomination. Former ambassador and Senator Scott Brown, who previously served in the Senate from Massachusetts and narrowly lost to Shaheen in the 2014 New Hampshire Senate race, entered the race in late June. Brown has emphasized his campaign’s resources and his commitment to grassroots politics, stating, “Our campaign will have the necessary resources for the long haul, and allow me to campaign the only way I know how: relentless hard work and a focus on retail politics that Granite State voters expect.”

Brown has also criticized Sununu for his past lack of support for former President Donald Trump, who remains a significant influence within the GOP. Sununu served as national co-chair for the 2016 presidential campaign of then-Ohio Governor John Kasich, who did not endorse Trump as the party’s nominee. Additionally, both Sununu and his brother endorsed former ambassador Nikki Haley in the 2024 New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, where she competed against Trump for the nomination.

In contrast, Brown endorsed Trump ahead of his 2016 primary victory and later served as U.S. ambassador to New Zealand during Trump’s presidency. Brown has argued that Sununu’s past affiliations with the “DC establishment” and his time in the private sector may not resonate with today’s GOP primary voters. He stated, “Anyone who thinks that a never Trump, corporate lobbyist who hasn’t won an election in a quarter century will resonate with today’s GOP primary voters is living in a different universe.”

Despite the challenges, Sununu’s candidacy has garnered attention from national Republican strategists, who view him as a strong contender to reclaim the Senate seat for the GOP. Earlier this year, Trump expressed support for Chris Sununu’s potential Senate bid, indicating a willingness to overlook past criticisms. Trump remarked, “He’s been very nice to me over the last year or so. I hope he runs. I think he’ll win that seat.”

As the race unfolds, four-term Democratic Representative Chris Pappas has emerged as the frontrunner for his party’s nomination. New Hampshire’s state primary, scheduled for next September, will be one of the last in the nation, while the state has historically held the first-in-the-nation presidential primary.

Although Republicans have seen success in state elections, controlling the governor’s office and both chambers of the state legislature, they have not won a Senate election in New Hampshire since 2010. With Sununu’s return to the political landscape, the dynamics of the race are poised to shift as both parties prepare for a competitive battle in the coming years.

Source: Original article

Experts and lawmakers speculate that President Trump’s military actions against drug trafficking in the Caribbean may be aimed at pressuring Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down.

President Donald Trump recently stated that Venezuela is “feeling heat” as his administration intensifies its efforts against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. In just the past week, U.S. forces have targeted at least two vessels. While Trump claims these strikes aim to reduce the influx of drugs into the United States, experts and some lawmakers suggest that the underlying goal is to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to relinquish power.

“The Trump administration is likely attempting to force Maduro to voluntarily leave office through a series of diplomatic moves, and now military action and the threat thereof,” said Brandan Buck, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, in an email to Fox News Digital. He added that whether this constitutes a ‘regime change’ is a matter of semantics.

The Trump administration has consistently refused to recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader, labeling him instead as the head of a drug cartel. In August, the administration increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s arrest to $50 million, branding him “one of the largest narco-traffickers in the world.”

Despite the escalating military actions, the administration has remained tight-lipped regarding Maduro. Trump declined to answer questions about whether the CIA had the authority to “take out” Maduro but confirmed that he authorized the agency to conduct covert operations in Venezuela. This decision followed reports that Venezuela has released prisoners into the U.S. and that drugs were entering the country via sea routes from Venezuela.

In a recent statement, Trump noted that Maduro had offered the U.S. access to Venezuelan oil and other natural resources, claiming the Venezuelan leader did not want to “f*** around” with the U.S.

However, experts like Buck caution that these military strikes are unlikely to significantly disrupt the flow of drugs into the U.S. “It is more likely that those strikes are part of this incremental effort to dislodge Maduro than merely an effort to wage war on the cartels,” he explained. He pointed out that Pacific and overland routes through Mexico are far more prolific, and Venezuela itself plays a relatively minor role, especially concerning fentanyl trafficking.

The Trump administration has ramped up its maritime forces to combat drug threats, bolstering naval assets in the Caribbean in recent months. This includes the deployment of several U.S. Navy guided missile destroyers to enhance counter-narcotics efforts in the region, a strategy that began in August.

Geoff Ramsey, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, noted that the administration hopes the increased military presence will encourage the Venezuelan military to take action against Maduro. “What President Trump is hoping is that this deployment will signal to the Venezuelan military that they should rise up against Maduro themselves,” Ramsey said in an email. “The problem is that we haven’t seen this approach bear fruit in twenty years of trying. Maduro is terrible at governing, but good at keeping his upper ranks fat and happy while the people starve.”

Ramsey emphasized the need for a clear roadmap or blueprint for a transition that could appeal to the ruling party and those around Maduro who might secretly desire change but need assurance of a future in a democratic Venezuela.

As the Trump administration adopts a hard-line approach to combat the flow of drugs into the U.S., it has designated various drug cartel groups, including Tren de Aragua and Sinaloa, as foreign terrorist organizations as of February. Additionally, the White House informed lawmakers on September 30 that the U.S. is now engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug smugglers, having conducted at least six strikes against vessels off the coast of Venezuela. The most recent strike resulted in the seizure of survivors, marking a shift in the nature of these military actions.

Concerns regarding the legality of these strikes have been raised by lawmakers from both parties. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) filed a war powers resolution in September aimed at preventing U.S. forces from engaging in “hostilities” against certain non-state organizations. This resolution failed in the Senate by a narrow margin of 51–48 on October 8, with Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voting alongside their Democratic colleagues.

On Friday, Schiff, Kaine, and Paul introduced a more targeted war powers resolution to prevent U.S. armed forces from participating in “hostilities” specifically against Venezuela. The lawmakers expressed concern over Trump’s comments suggesting potential land operations in Venezuela. “The Trump administration has made it clear they may launch military action inside Venezuela’s borders and won’t stop at boat strikes in the Caribbean,” Schiff stated. “In recent weeks, we have seen increasingly concerning movements and reporting that undermine claims that this is merely about stopping drug smugglers. Congress has not authorized military force against Venezuela, and we must assert our authority to prevent the United States from being dragged—intentionally or accidentally—into full-fledged war in South America.”

When questioned about lawmakers’ concerns regarding the legality of the strikes, Trump dismissed them, asserting that lawmakers were informed the vessels carried drugs. “But they are given information that they were loaded up with drugs,” Trump said. “And that’s the thing that matters. When they’re loaded up with drugs, they’re fair game. And every one of those ships were and they’re not ships, they’re boats.”

Source: Original article

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has condemned President Trump’s plan to deploy federal troops to the city, asserting that there is no current lawlessness or violence in the area.

Portland Mayor Keith Wilson voiced strong opposition on Saturday to President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding the deployment of federal troops to Oregon’s largest city. The president’s decision comes amid ongoing protests and heightened tensions between federal authorities and local activists.

In a statement made during a news conference, Wilson asserted that there is no need for military intervention in Portland, declaring that the number of troops required is “zero.” He emphasized that the city is not a military target, stating, “This is an American city. We do not need any intervention.”

Trump’s announcement, made early Saturday morning, indicated that he had directed War Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide “all necessary troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE facilities under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists.” The president suggested he would authorize full force if necessary to address what he described as lawlessness.

In response, Wilson criticized the portrayal of Portland as a city in chaos, claiming that video footage of violence being circulated was outdated, stating it was “recycled and then recycled again” from incidents that occurred five years ago. He insisted that if Trump were to visit Portland today, he would see a community engaged in everyday activities such as riding bikes, playing sports, and shopping at local markets.

Wilson highlighted the progress the city has made since the footage was recorded, noting reforms in the public safety system and efforts to support vulnerable populations. “We’ve had hard conversations, and we’ve done important work in the years since that footage was taken,” he said.

Protests have intensified near the ICE facility in Portland since June, with city officials citing land use violations, including improper detainee holding times and boarded-up windows. The facility has been the site of vandalism and clashes between protesters and federal agents, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations. Law enforcement has responded with rubber bullets, tear gas, and flashbangs to disperse crowds during these events.

In August, video footage captured a particularly violent protest, showing demonstrators rolling out a guillotine, setting fires, and clashing with authorities. This incident prompted law enforcement to take action to control the situation.

Rather than sending troops to Portland, Wilson suggested that the president consider dispatching “hundreds of engineers, or teachers, or outreach workers” to the city. He expressed disappointment with the federal government’s approach, stating, “At the end of the day, this may be a show of force, but that’s all it is. It’s a big show, and after the big show, everyone goes home.”

Wilson emphasized Portland’s long-standing tradition of peaceful protest and its commitment to positive social change. He expressed concern over the potential risks associated with the federal intervention, noting that the administration has not clarified what it means by deploying “full force” against the city and its residents.

While Trump did not explicitly state that he would deploy full force against Portland’s citizens, he did mention sending “all necessary troops” to protect the city and its ICE facilities, authorizing full force against domestic terrorism if deemed necessary.

Portland has been designated a sanctuary city since 2017, resisting federal immigration enforcement and becoming a focal point in the administration’s immigration enforcement initiatives. In August, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to Wilson, warning that the city’s sanctuary policies undermine U.S. interests and demanding compliance with federal law.

The City of Portland did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the situation.

Source: Original article