Donald Trump’s Second Presidency Begins with Bold Moves, Controversy, and Power Plays

On Monday, Donald Trump launched his second term with swift and sweeping actions, aiming to redefine his presidency while addressing his previous term’s shortcomings. Proclaiming the dawn of a “Golden Age” for America, Trump quickly consolidated his authority, implementing measures that targeted Joe Biden’s legacy and signaling an aggressive approach to governance.

Within hours, he pardoned hundreds of January 6 rioters, initiated stringent immigration reforms, and solidified alliances with influential tech leaders. His unorthodox foreign policy decisions sent ripples through global capitals, underscoring a dramatic pivot from the internationalism championed by most presidents since World War II.

In a press conference at the Oval Office, Trump showcased a confident, decisive demeanor, drawing on lessons from his first term to maximize his control over executive powers. However, alongside ambitious goals and bold rhetoric, Trump’s actions were accompanied by grievances, misinformation, and a growing sense of self-importance, raising concerns about his commitment to democratic principles.

The day’s rapid sequence of events, including the issuance of numerous executive orders, hinted at looming legal battles. Despite the theatrics, Trump’s agenda faces challenges, with new legislation requiring cooperation from a narrowly Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Without such legislative backing, many of his actions could be reversed by the next administration, much like his dismantling of Biden-era policies.

Pardons for January 6 Rioters

In a polarizing move, Trump issued blanket pardons to approximately 1,500 individuals convicted or accused of crimes during the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack. These pardons extended to high-profile members of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, erasing distinctions between violent offenders and those guilty of lesser charges.

This act underscored Trump’s willingness to shield his supporters from legal consequences, even at the cost of undermining democratic norms. Critics warned this could embolden future acts of political violence. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denounced the move, stating, “Trump’s actions are an outrageous insult to our justice system and the heroes who suffered physical scars and emotional trauma as they protected the Capitol, the Congress, and the Constitution.”

Biden’s Preemptive Pardons

Trump wasn’t the only president accused of misusing pardon power. Before leaving office, Biden issued blanket pardons to officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and members of the House committee investigating January 6. Biden justified these actions as necessary protections against Trump’s threats of retribution.

Additionally, Biden preemptively pardoned several family members, including his brothers and sister, claiming it was to safeguard their reputations. Critics argued this expanded the potential misuse of presidential pardon power, setting a dangerous precedent. Trump seized on this development, remarking, “Now every president, when they leave office, they are going to pardon everyone they met.”

Immigration Overhaul

Trump moved swiftly on immigration, declaring an emergency at the southern border, ending the use of an app facilitating legal migrant entry, and initiating efforts to terminate birthright citizenship. He also suspended refugee resettlement for four months and dismissed senior Justice Department officials overseeing immigration courts.

While his actions aimed to fulfill campaign promises, they also set the stage for constitutional and legal challenges. Trump’s broader vision for mass deportations requires congressional approval, highlighting the limitations of executive orders in enacting lasting policy changes.

Rolling Back Diversity Policies

Fulfilling another campaign promise, Trump revoked Biden’s executive orders protecting against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Federal diversity programs were also dismantled, with changes extending to documentation requirements, such as passports and visas reflecting applicants’ biological sex.

These actions catered to Trump’s base but risked alienating many Americans who viewed such policies as steps backward in civil rights.

Tech Titans Join Trump’s Inner Circle

Trump’s inaugural celebrations prominently featured Silicon Valley leaders, marking a shift in allegiance from Democrats to his administration. Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg attended events and appeared alongside Trump, signaling their willingness to collaborate with his government.

Musk, who received significant federal contracts, was even appointed to lead a newly established Department of Government Efficiency. While Trump argued that leveraging tech pioneers was in America’s interest, their proximity to power raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of tech giants on public discourse.

Shaking Global Norms

Trump’s return to power reverberated across the globe. In his first press conference, he demanded NATO allies increase defense spending to 5% of GDP—a nearly unattainable goal for many nations. He also reignited tensions over the Panama Canal, falsely claiming, “China is operating the Panama Canal and we didn’t give it to China. We gave it to Panama and we’re taking it back.”

Additionally, Trump labeled Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and hinted at deploying special forces into Mexico—a proposal fraught with diplomatic and security risks. On Ukraine, he increased pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to negotiate peace, asserting, “The war does not make him look very good.”

Economic and Trade Policies

While Trump refrained from immediately imposing new tariffs, he confirmed plans to introduce 25% duties on Mexican and Canadian imports starting February 1, risking a trade conflict within North America. Although tariffs on China remain unimplemented, Trump hinted at using them as leverage in upcoming negotiations.

Trump’s assertion that tariffs would generate significant revenue for the U.S. was misleading, as their costs are typically borne by American consumers. Potential inflationary effects and rising prices for essentials like food and fuel could pose challenges to his administration’s economic agenda.

Challenges Ahead

Despite a dramatic start, Trump’s second term faces significant hurdles. His reliance on executive orders underscores his difficulty in securing legislative support, a necessity for long-lasting reforms. Additionally, his tendency toward grievance politics and self-promotion could distract from meaningful governance.

The widespread pardons and sweeping policy changes highlight Trump’s determination to reshape America, but they also risk deepening divisions and eroding democratic norms. As he seeks to solidify his legacy, the success of his presidency will hinge on balancing bold ambitions with the practicalities of governance.

By the end of his first day back in office, Trump had cemented his reputation as a disruptor, willing to challenge conventions and push the boundaries of presidential power. However, whether this approach can deliver sustained progress or merely provoke further polarization remains to be seen.

Trump’s Inaugural Committee Raises Stakes with $1 Million Donation Package

Major donors seeking access to Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance during the upcoming inauguration are facing a significantly higher price tag. The committee’s latest fundraising materials reveal that the minimum contribution for top-tier perks has doubled, rising from $500,000 during Trump’s first inauguration to $1 million this time around.

The $1 Million Package

This premium package offers two tickets to a private dinner with Vance and six tickets to the prestigious “candlelight dinner,” where Trump is expected to attend. For lobbyists and high-profile donors eager to curry favor with the incoming administration, such opportunities are seen as vital, particularly as Trump resumes power.

Rising Costs Reflect Increased Demand

The steep increase in donation requirements reflects heightened enthusiasm following a polarizing election. The committee has already raised over $170 million, with projections exceeding $200 million. These funds far surpass the estimated costs of the events, which include multiple receptions, lunches, and celebratory balls. For many donors, particularly those with business interests requiring governmental cooperation, the $1 million contribution is viewed as a strategic investment.

Fewer Benefits for Smaller Contributions

Smaller donations, ranging from $100,000 to $250,000, now offer far fewer privileges. A transition official acknowledged the diminishing returns for donors at these levels, suggesting that such contributors might gain more by supporting Trump-aligned political action committees instead. “At $100,000, you’re not even noticed,” the official remarked, emphasizing the exclusivity of the inaugural fundraising strategy.

Donation Tiers and Their Perks

The committee has outlined a five-tier donation structure, ranging from $50,000 to $1 million, with varying degrees of access:

  • $1 Million: Grants admission to both the candlelight dinner and the private vice-president’s dinner.
  • $500,000: Includes access to the candlelight dinner but excludes the vice-president’s dinner, a notable reduction from 2017 when this tier provided access to both.
  • $50,000: Offers limited access to events, such as those featuring Cabinet officials, though the price for this level has been halved compared to 2017.

Promotional materials highlight the candlelight dinner, held at the National Building Museum, as a glamorous black-tie event attended by Trump and Melania Trump. Meanwhile, the vice-president’s dinner at the National Gallery of Art is promoted as an exclusive gathering for high-level donors.

Reduced Perks Even at Premium Levels

Despite its hefty price tag, the $1 million package offers fewer benefits compared to 2017. Notably, the “leadership luncheon,” which previously included appearances by Cabinet appointees and congressional leaders, has been removed from the itinerary. Some insiders suggest that private events hosted by prominent Trump allies, including Donald Trump Jr., Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, and Steve Bannon, may provide more meaningful opportunities for influential interactions.

Limited Returns for Smaller Donors

Contributors at the lower end of the spectrum, such as those donating $50,000 or $100,000, should not expect personal access to Trump. However, they may still attend events featuring Cabinet members and other figures from Trump’s political circle. Nevertheless, with perks scaled back across all donation levels, the value for smaller donors has diminished compared to previous inaugural celebrations.

Strategic Investments by Donors

The dramatic price increases underline the fundraising committee’s emphasis on exclusivity, catering primarily to high-net-worth individuals and organizations seeking to secure influence. The $1 million contribution is positioned as not just a donation but a calculated move to align with Trump’s administration during its return to power.

In summary, Trump’s inauguration committee has raised the bar for donor contributions, reflecting both increased demand for access and a strategic shift toward exclusivity. While the enhanced price tags may deter smaller donors, they highlight the administration’s focus on courting top-tier supporters willing to invest in influence and proximity.

Trump Begins Second Term with Ambitious Policies Amid Mixed Reactions

Donald Trump has started his second term as President of the United States with a flurry of executive orders, policy announcements, and international reactions. On his first full day back in the White House, the president set the tone for his administration’s direction, emphasizing themes of strength, transparency, and economic growth.

A Bold Start: Executive Orders and National Emergency Declaration

On Monday, Trump initiated the process of withdrawing the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement. He also declared a national emergency at the southern border, citing the need to address immigration issues. Mexico’s President Claudia Scheinbaum criticized these moves, stating that the emergency declaration is a rehash of a similar order from 2019 and labeled the “Remain in Mexico” policy as a repeat from 2018. On a lighter note, Scheinbaum dismissed Trump’s directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” asserting that Mexico and the rest of the world would continue using its current name.

The president also granted nearly 1,600 pardons related to the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021. Many prisoners are expected to be released promptly, a move that has sparked intense debate.

Press Briefings Absent but Transparency Promised

Nearly a full day into Trump’s second term, the White House has yet to hold a press briefing. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in an interview with Fox News, stated that “the American people won’t be hearing from me today,” redirecting attention to Trump’s infrastructure announcement planned for later. Leavitt described Trump as “the most transparent president in history,” suggesting more direct interactions between the president and reporters in the future.

Reporters in the White House press area expressed eagerness for clarity on Trump’s policies and plans. News briefings typically offer opportunities to scrutinize presidential decisions and understand the administration’s perspective. These sessions can be tense, as seen during Joe Biden’s tenure, particularly when the press queried sensitive topics like the Gaza conflict or the president’s age.

Canada Responds to Tariff Threats

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to Trump’s renewed threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the two countries’ economies. “Canadian energy powers American manufacturing, business, homes,” Trudeau remarked. Referring to Trump’s vision of a “golden age” for America, Trudeau noted that achieving it would require critical resources such as steel, aluminum, and minerals—many of which Canada provides.

Trudeau warned of retaliatory measures should the tariffs proceed. “Canada will respond—and everything is on the table,” he stated. Trump, meanwhile, has instructed his administration to review U.S. trade relationships, with findings expected by April 1.

Rubio Takes Helm as Secretary of State

Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been sworn in as Secretary of State, becoming the first member of Trump’s new cabinet to secure Senate approval. Known for his hawkish foreign policy stance, Rubio emphasized a transformative approach to U.S. diplomacy. “Does it make us stronger? Does it make us safer and does it make us more prosperous? If not, we will not do it,” he declared.

Rubio, who has a reputation for taking firm positions on issues involving Iran and China, described this period as a “new era” for U.S. foreign policy. He reiterated Trump’s focus on promoting peace as the primary goal of international engagement.

Infrastructure Announcement and Religious Observance

Today, Trump is scheduled to attend an interfaith prayer service at Washington, D.C.’s National Cathedral, joined by notable figures such as JD Vance. Later in the day, he plans to unveil a “massive announcement” regarding infrastructure. Leavitt hinted that this initiative would showcase America’s resurgence on the global stage, though no specific details were disclosed.

Global Reactions to U.S. Policies

International responses to Trump’s decisions have been swift and varied. Laurence Tubiana, a key architect of the Paris Climate Agreement, urged nations to persist with climate action despite the U.S. withdrawal. “We should not be frightened by shouting or declarations,” Tubiana asserted, adding, “Let’s not be derailed or distracted. It is a moment of courage I’m waiting for.”

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz commented on Elon Musk’s controversial gesture at Trump’s inauguration, which some compared to a Nazi salute. Scholz reiterated Germany’s commitment to freedom of speech while condemning any actions that support extremist views. Musk dismissed the criticism on social media, calling it a “tired attack.”

Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

Political analyst Anthony Zurcher highlighted the challenges and opportunities Trump faces in his second term. His policies on trade, climate, and immigration will shape both domestic and international perceptions. Meanwhile, his approach to transparency and press relations could redefine the dynamics of presidential accountability.

As the day unfolds, Trump’s actions will likely continue to spark debates, signaling an administration eager to implement its vision while navigating complex political landscapes. Whether these early moves will lead to the promised “golden age” remains to be seen.

Trump’s Inauguration Festivities and Protests Kick Off Ahead of Monday’s Ceremony

Festivities marking the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump have commenced, drawing both his supporters and protesters to Washington, D.C. The series of events, leading up to Monday’s swearing-in as the 47th president, began on Saturday with Trump’s arrival and a host of planned celebrations and demonstrations.

Trump’s schedule included his anticipated arrival at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, followed by a reception and a fireworks show at his Virginia golf course. Additionally, Vice President-elect Vance was set to be honored at a Cabinet reception and dinner at the National Gallery of Art that evening.

In parallel, the D.C. People’s March, spearheaded by multiple activist organizations, began on Saturday morning. The demonstration culminated in a rally outside the Lincoln Memorial at 3 p.m., where approximately 50,000 participants were expected. The march showcased impassioned calls for change, with chants of unity led by organizers.

On Sunday, Trump plans to host a rally at Capital One Arena in Washington, featuring speeches from notable allies, including tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. The event is also set to include performances by artists such as the Village People, Kid Rock, and Billy Ray Cyrus.

The weather played a significant role in reshaping the inaugural plans. Although Saturday was mild, the forecast of a snowstorm and freezing temperatures prompted the ceremony to be relocated inside the Capitol on Monday.

Trump Heads to Washington

At 4:35 p.m. on Saturday, President-elect Trump, joined by his wife, Melania, and their son, Barron, boarded a plane at Palm Beach International Airport. Waving from the top of the stairs, Trump set off for Washington to prepare for his inauguration.

Earlier in the afternoon, Trump’s adult children and their families also departed for Washington. Eric and Lara Trump, alongside Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and their children, were seen boarding the family’s plane at the airport. Trump himself was expected to leave at 4:30 p.m., traveling aboard an official government aircraft.

Dignitaries to Attend the Inauguration

Vice President-elect Vance is expected to participate in Monday’s ceremony, joining a host of prominent figures, including current President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and former President George W. Bush. The event’s relocation to an indoor venue underscores the logistical challenges posed by the severe weather.

Protests Amplify Voices

The People’s March, which concluded around 3 p.m. on Saturday, was marked by fervent chants of “I believe we will win!” as attendees rallied for justice and equality. Raquel Willis, co-founder of the Gender Liberation Movement, delivered a stirring speech urging attendees to assert their presence and power. “Take up space,” she proclaimed. “If you feel disempowered, if you feel angry and afraid, it’s time to take up space.”

Willis further emphasized inclusivity, advocating for autonomy and understanding across all gender identities. “If you know that women and girls and dolls and fems are the rulers of their own lives, take up space,” she declared. “If you know men and boys and masculine folk, especially my trans men and trans masculine folk, can be empathetic and understanding, take up space.”

Call for Ceasefire in Gaza

Palestinian rights advocate Iman Abid also addressed the crowd, urging an end to the ongoing violence in Gaza. As director of advocacy and organizing for the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Abid called for a lasting ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and demanded the cessation of U.S. arms sales to Israel.

“Days ago, we learned that a temporary ceasefire deal has been reached after over 15 months of Israel bombarding Gaza and massacring tens of thousands of Palestinians,” Abid said. “This is urgently needed relief, but it is only the beginning. We will not stop until the occupation ends, the blockades are lifted, and the violence ends.”

Abid’s remarks echoed the broader political divide over U.S. policy toward Israel. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, exacerbated by Hamas’ invasion of Israel, has stirred heated debates within the Democratic Party, influencing the presidential primary.

Snowstorm Looms Over Washington

As festivities continue, Washington braces for a significant winter storm. The predicted snowfall and freezing temperatures have added a layer of urgency to the logistical arrangements for Monday’s inauguration. With Trump’s allies and detractors converging in the capital, the weekend is shaping up to be a pivotal moment, both in celebration and resistance.

The upcoming events promise a mix of jubilance and defiance, reflecting the complex emotions surrounding Trump’s presidency. As Washington prepares for the historic ceremony, all eyes remain on the unfolding dynamics of America’s political landscape.

Donald Trump Sworn In As The 47th US President

“The golden age of America begins right now,” declared Donald Trump in his inaugural address on January 20, 2025, immediately after he was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. Trump said the US would “flourish and be respected” under his leadership. Trump is taking charge of the world’s most powerful nation, even as the Republicans claim unified control of Washington and setting out to reshape the country’s institutions.

Trump was sworn in by Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Roberts, marking a political comeback after being convicted of felonies. His running mate, JD Vance, was sworn in by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The ceremony was moved inside to the U.S. Capitol Rotunda because of frigid weather for only the first time since Ronald Reagan’s second inauguration 40 years ago.

Photos of the swearing-in show Trump with his hand at his side, not on the Bible, as has been a long held tradition. Using a Bible during the presidential oath is traditional but not required; only the oath is mandated by the Constitution. Theodore Roosevelt, John Quincy Adams, and Lyndon B. Johnson did not use a Bible for their oaths.

The high-profile, solemn ceremony was attended by, among others, Tech billionaires, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, cabinet nominees, and former presidents, who were all at the ceremony in the rotunda of the US Capitol. Country music star Carrie Underwood performed “America the Beautiful.”

President Donald Trump claimed today, January 20, 2025, is “liberation day.”  He went on to state that, “It is my hope that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” Trump added that his presidential victory showed that “the entire nation is rapidly unifying behind our agenda with dramatic increases in support from virtually every element of our society.”

Inauguration ceremony for Trump's second presidential term
Photo Credit: Reuters

He went on to thank Black and Hispanic voters for “the tremendous outpouring of love and trust that you have shown me with your vote. We set records and I will not forget it,” the president said. “I’ve heard your voices on the campaign, and I look forward to working with you in the years to come.”

In his inaugural address Trump slammed the Biden administration — as former President Joe Biden sat steps away — for failing to “manage simple crisis at home. We now have a government that cannot manage a simple crisis at home while at the same time stumble into a continuing catalog of catastrophic events abroad,” Trump said.

Per reports, Trump is expected to sign an executive order declaring that the federal government would recognize only two genders as well as a series of orders aimed at remaking America’s immigration policies, including ending asylum access, sending troops to the southern border and ending birthright citizenship.

Focusing on immigration, a major focus of his new administration, Trump said, the government “fails to protect our magnificent law-abiding citizens but proves sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals. We have a government that has given unlimited funding to the defense of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders or, more importantly, its own people.”

Hours before the change in US leadership, President Joe Biden issued pardons for Gen. Mark Milley, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and members of Congress who served on the committee investigating January 6. He also issued preemptive pardons for his brothers, James and Frank, his sister Valerie, and their spouses.

A coalition of veterans, public health professionals, teachers, and consumer advocates has filed a federal lawsuit against Trump’s special commission on government efficiency. Filed after Trump’s swearing-in, the suit seeks an injunction against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It claims Trump is not complying with federal transparency laws and argues that private commission activities must be public. Trump mentioned DOGE, led by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, in his inauguration speech.

Rabbi Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, delivered the first benediction after Trump’s inaugural address. He is the second Orthodox rabbi to do so at a presidential inauguration. The tradition of clergy offering prayers at inaugurations dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second inauguration in 1937. Rev. Lorenzo Sewell, pastor of 180 Church Detroit, delivered the second benediction, expressing gratitude for the “millimeter miracle” given to the 45th and 47th presidents.

Trump’s Unfulfilled Promises

Ordinarily, presidents wait until they are in the Oval Office before breaking campaign promises. However, Donald Trump began this process before Inauguration Day. As a candidate, Trump promised to lower grocery prices. As president-elect, he acknowledged that achieving this goal would be “very hard” and expressed uncertainty about his ability to do so.

Trump had claimed that Elon Musk would find ways to cut “at least $2 trillion” from the federal budget. As president-elect, his GOP megadonor publicly stated that the $2 trillion figure was more of a “best-case outcome” than a realistic goal, though there might still be a “good shot” at achieving half of it.

Perhaps most notably, Trump asserted during his campaign that he would successfully broker an end to Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours, even during his transition period. He reiterated this promise during his presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, assuring Americans that “I will get it settled before I even become president.”

Despite these assurances, as Trump prepares to return to the White House, it is evident that this promise remains unfulfilled. Nearly three years after Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the war, Europe’s worst since World War II, continues with no end in sight. The New York Times published an analysis noting that Trump “not only has failed to keep his promise; he has also made no known serious effort to resolve the war since his election in November.”

In summary, the president-elect did not attempt to honor his commitment. This was not merely a one-time statement; according to data published by NOTUS, Trump told voters on 33 occasions that he would end the conflict within one day. A recent Reuters report added that the president-elect’s team now concedes “that the Ukraine war will take months or even longer to resolve, a sharp reality check on his biggest foreign policy promise.”

A New Beginning in 2025

Trump’s second inaugural speech today marked a major departure from his tone the first time he took the Oath of Office in 2017, when Trump put aside the typical optimism and promises of unity with a dark portrait of national life as he spoke of “American Carnage.” He had declared then,  “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.”

However, today, Trump portrayed himself in a positive manner. “Many people thought it was impossible for me to stage such a historic political comeback, but as you see here today, here I am,” Trump said in his inaugural address in 2025. “I stand before you now as proof that you should never believe that something is impossible to do in America,” he went on, adding: “In America, the impossible is what we do best.”

Biden’s Final Farewell: A Reflective End to a Half-Century Political Journey

As President Joe Biden delivered his farewell addresses to his diplomatic corps, military leaders, and the nation, the scene contrasted sharply with the vision he had for the end of his political career. After over 50 years in Washington, Biden’s departure on Monday is marked by reluctance, as he firmly believes he had more to contribute. However, questions about his health and vitality linger.

Biden’s record in office is a mixture of achievements and lingering frustrations. His political career’s conclusion has left him estranged from some former allies who urged him to step aside. Many Democrats blame him for paving the way for Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Furthermore, his relationship with Vice President Kamala Harris has become strained, adding complexity to his final days in office.

As Biden departs Washington on his helicopter, the city he leaves behind is now under the control of his rival Trump. Biden’s ambition to solidify his legacy as the leader who vanquished Trump once and for all has given way to a more somber reality. Instead of being remembered as a transformative statesman, Biden fears he will be seen as an interim figure between two Trump administrations.

“While my term in office is ending, the work continues,” Biden said during a speech to mayors on Friday, signaling hope for the future while reflecting on his presidency.

A Term Defined by Highs and Lows

Biden’s presidency was eventful, defined by significant challenges and mixed outcomes. He guided the nation out of a devastating pandemic but faced criticism for the inflation that followed, partly fueled by his stimulus spending. Although he ended Trump-era immigration policies deemed inhumane, the surge in illegal crossings and the eventual reinstatement of some restrictions sparked backlash.

In foreign policy, Biden made the historic decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan, ending the nation’s longest war. However, the chaotic and deadly withdrawal left a lasting stain on his administration. The war in Ukraine saw renewed alliances with Western nations, but the conflict continues with no clear resolution. In the Middle East, Biden brokered a last-minute ceasefire in Gaza, but critics noted Trump’s role in securing the deal.

Domestically, Biden’s investments in infrastructure and manufacturing created thousands of jobs, fostering new industries. Yet, as Biden himself acknowledged, “It will take time to feel the full impact of all we’ve done together. But the seeds are planted, and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.”

A Legacy of Contradictions

Biden’s efforts to restore normalcy to the presidency after Trump’s tumultuous years were overshadowed by decisions such as pardoning his son, Hunter. Despite criticism, he remains hopeful that history will ultimately recognize the merits of his administration.

During a 19-minute farewell address from the Oval Office, Biden emphasized the long-term impact of his presidency rather than listing immediate accomplishments. He also warned against the rise of a “tech-industrial complex” that he believes threatens democratic institutions. Critics, however, noted his reliance on financial support from billionaires, including those in Silicon Valley and Wall Street.

“He’s forever frustrated we didn’t tell a good enough story about what the administration did,” a senior White House official remarked, highlighting Biden’s concerns about how his achievements were communicated to the public.

Biden’s allies remain optimistic about his legacy. “I think historians are not gonna be dealing with sound bites… They’re going to deal with the substance, and on substance, I think you’re going to find that Joe Biden is going to be treated very, very well,” said Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina.

Strained Dynamics with Harris

As Biden’s presidency concludes, his comments about the election have strained his relationship with Kamala Harris. Biden has suggested in private conversations and interviews that he could have defeated Trump had he not been pressured to step aside. “It’s presumptuous to say that, but I think yes, based on the polling,” Biden told USA Today. However, polling data offered no such indication.

Every mention of Biden’s belief that he could have won is seen as a slight against Harris, who ultimately failed to defeat Trump. A former Harris adviser noted, “It’s a sign of disrespect whether he intends it or not.”

Although Biden has not directly criticized Harris, his remarks have caused friction within the Democratic Party. Harris’ supporters have expressed frustration over her unwavering loyalty to Biden during her campaign, with one former adviser commenting, “She was loyal to her detriment.”

The tension between Biden and Harris became evident when Biden modified his language after a conversation with Harris about his election comments. “I think I would have beaten Trump, could’ve beaten Trump,” Biden said. “I think Kamala could have beaten Trump, would have beaten Trump.” While the adjustment aimed to acknowledge Harris’ efforts, it further frustrated her supporters.

Despite these tensions, Harris has maintained a public show of unity with Biden. In the final days of their partnership, she stood by his side during key moments, including the announcement of the Middle East ceasefire deal and his farewell address from the Oval Office.

Reflecting on the Road Ahead

Biden’s departure from public office marks the end of a remarkable political career. As the nation’s youngest senator in 1972 and its oldest president, Biden is set to enter private life while remaining engaged in public discourse. “I’m not going to be out of sight or out of mind,” he assured reporters.

Biden’s post-presidency plans include raising funds for a presidential library and potentially writing a book. His legacy, however, remains a topic of debate. Democratic leaders have expressed a desire to move past the 2024 election losses. “This is our reality, and we have to move forward,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California.

Harris, 22 years younger than Biden, faces a different set of challenges. Many believe her political career is far from over, with possibilities ranging from a 2026 bid for California governor to a 2028 presidential campaign. “It is not my nature to go quietly into the night,” Harris told staffers, signaling her intent to remain active in politics.

A Complicated Legacy

As Biden and Harris part ways, their final days reflect the divergent paths they will take. Biden’s focus will shift to solidifying his legacy and ensuring his contributions are recognized. Harris, on the other hand, must navigate the challenges of shaping her own political future.

For Biden, the hope remains that time will provide a more favorable assessment of his presidency. “The seeds are planted,” he said, “and they’ll grow and they’ll bloom for decades to come.” Whether those seeds bear fruit as he hopes, only history will tell.

Biden’s Presidency Marred by Supreme Court Defeats as Conservative Majority Dominates

During his tenure as president, Joe Biden faced a string of significant defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court, where the conservative-dominated bench dismantled parts of his agenda and upended legal precedents long upheld by liberals.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, delivered one of its most seismic rulings in 2022 by overturning Roe v. Wade, a 1973 landmark decision that had guaranteed the constitutional right to abortion. Despite the Biden administration’s efforts to safeguard it, the ruling marked a major blow to reproductive rights.

In 2023, the court further undermined Biden’s priorities by striking down race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities. These policies, long defended by his administration, were designed to boost representation among Black, Hispanic, and other minority students. Additional setbacks followed, including the court’s decision to expand gun rights in 2022 and, in 2024, invalidate a federal ban on bump stocks, devices enabling semiautomatic weapons to mimic machine guns.

One of the most striking defeats came in 2023 when the justices blocked Biden’s $430 billion student loan relief program. The court also curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory reach as part of broader efforts to limit the power of federal agencies.

Legal experts compared the scope of these defeats to challenges faced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, whose New Deal initiatives were struck down by a similarly conservative Supreme Court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School, noted, “I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt… had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional.”

John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer under President George W. Bush, echoed this sentiment, stating, “It’s hard to think of another president in our lifetimes who lost so many high-profile cases on issues so near and dear to his constitutional agenda.”

Conservative Majority Solidified Under Trump

Biden’s presidency began just months after the Senate confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s third appointee, cementing a solid conservative majority. Trump’s other nominees—Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—joined Barrett and fellow conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to form the 6-3 divide.

In contrast, Biden managed to appoint only one justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who became the first Black woman on the court. However, her appointment replaced another liberal justice, Stephen Breyer, leaving the court’s ideological balance unchanged.

As Biden’s presidency concludes, Trump’s second term could allow him to further shape the judiciary. By potentially replacing senior conservative justices with younger counterparts—or even filling a liberal vacancy—Trump could ensure a long-lasting conservative influence.

Chemerinsky attributed Biden’s judicial losses to the “ideological difference between the Supreme Court’s majority and the Biden administration.” These defeats underscored Biden’s frustration, with the president at one point describing the court as “not a normal court.”

In his final year, Biden proposed significant judicial reforms, including term limits for justices and enforceable ethics rules. He argued that “extreme opinions that the Supreme Court has handed down have undermined long-established civil rights principles and protections.” However, these proposals found no traction in a Republican-controlled Congress.

Conservative Legal Philosophy and Administrative Constraints

John Yoo criticized Biden’s administration for failing to adapt to the court’s conservative approach, which emphasizes the Constitution’s “original understanding, history, and tradition.” He argued, “By refusing to accept this change, the administration rendered itself irrelevant on the most important constitutional questions of the day. That is a recipe for defeat.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc has been advancing a campaign to rein in federal agencies, a movement sometimes referred to as a “war on the administrative state.” This philosophy proved instrumental in high-profile rulings during Biden’s presidency.

Faced with a gridlocked Congress, Democratic presidents have increasingly relied on federal agencies to enact policy. However, during Biden’s term, the court embraced the major questions doctrine, a principle granting judges discretion to invalidate agency actions with significant economic or political impact unless Congress explicitly authorized them.

This doctrine was pivotal in the court’s decision to block Biden’s student debt relief program and restrict the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

Cornell Law School professor Gautam Hans highlighted the challenges this posed, noting, “The environmental law and student loan cases show how disdainful the court is of Democratic executive action, precisely because the lack of congressional movement means that executive action remains the only avenue for any kind of policy progress in the U.S.”

In another blow to regulatory power, the court in 2024 overturned the Chevron deference, a 1984 precedent that required courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. This longstanding principle had been a target of conservative and business interests.

Limited Wins for Biden

While major defeats dominated Biden’s record at the Supreme Court, his administration did secure some victories. In a significant ruling, the justices upheld a law requiring the sale of TikTok by its Chinese parent company or its ban in the U.S., citing national security concerns.

Additionally, the court preserved the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and upheld a law barring individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms.

However, other cases resulted in more tentative victories. The court dismissed several challenges against Biden-backed policies due to a lack of legal standing, including cases involving access to the abortion pill mifepristone, immigration enforcement priorities, and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

Hans cautioned that these outcomes were not definitive triumphs, explaining, “These cases didn’t really resound to validate political goals of the Biden administration.” Instead, he warned that the issues might return in future cases, potentially leading to adverse rulings.

Trump’s Legal Wins

While Biden grappled with setbacks, Trump enjoyed notable victories at the Supreme Court, particularly in cases addressing presidential immunity.

In 2023, the court ruled in favor of Trump’s request for immunity following his indictment on federal charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The decision marked the first time the court recognized presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts. Biden criticized the decision as setting “a dangerous precedent.”

Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, observed that Biden’s challenges reflect broader trends in the court’s jurisprudence. These include curbing federal agency powers and expanding presidential authority. Schwinn remarked, “We’ll see this immediately in the second Trump administration, with a president who has promised to take full advantage of these trends.”

Biden’s presidency may ultimately be remembered for its confrontation with a Supreme Court determined to reshape the balance of power in American governance. As Trump prepares to assume office again, the court’s conservative majority appears poised to continue its transformative agenda.

Trump’s Inauguration Moved Indoors Amid Frigid Weather Concerns

President-elect Donald Trump announced Friday that his inauguration will be moved indoors due to dangerously cold temperatures forecasted for the nation’s capital. “I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda, as was used by Ronald Reagan in 1985, also because of very cold weather,” Trump stated on Truth Social.

He further revealed that Capital One Arena would open on Monday to facilitate live viewing of the event and host the Presidential Parade. “I will join the crowd at Capital One, after my Swearing In,” Trump added.

Indoor Venue Confirmed

Reports earlier in the day from CNN indicated plans for Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance to take their oaths inside the Capitol Rotunda. Discussions were also underway regarding the use of Capital One Arena, where Trump is scheduled to hold a rally on Sunday, for some of the inaugural festivities.

The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies issued a statement confirming the move: “The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will honor the request of the President-elect and his Presidential Inaugural Committee to move the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies inside the U.S. Capitol to the Rotunda.”

Such contingency plans are always considered to accommodate weather or other unforeseen obstacles, but the shift raises logistical concerns. The Rotunda’s limited capacity leaves the committee grappling with how to accommodate the thousands of ticketed guests who were to attend the outdoor ceremony.

In a notice to ticket holders, the committee explained, “The vast majority of ticketed guests will not be able to attend the ceremonies in person.” Spectators were encouraged to view the event at designated indoor venues, with further details promised. Members of Congress and those with tickets for the Presidential Platform, however, will retain in-person access.

Adjusting Security Measures

The Secret Service, alongside the DC and U.S. Capitol Police, is working to revise security plans for the event, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the matter. This shift presents a logistical challenge, as agencies must condense months of preparation into a three-day window.

Trump’s inauguration, initially planned as an outdoor ceremony and parade down Pennsylvania Avenue, had been declared a National Special Security Event by the Department of Homeland Security, triggering extensive federal coordination. More than 30 miles of fencing had already been erected to manage the anticipated crowds, which law enforcement estimated would include hundreds of thousands of attendees.

By moving the ceremony indoors, security requirements may become more manageable in certain aspects, sources told CNN. The Rotunda, with a capacity of about 700 people, will only admit members of Congress, their spouses, and VIPs. Public access will be restricted, and attendees have been redirected to Capital One Arena, which has a seating capacity of just over 20,000.

However, this adjustment leaves a significant gap, as over 200,000 tickets were distributed for the outdoor inauguration. In a communication to congressional offices, the Sergeant at Arms clarified, “The weather plan precludes the vast majority of ticketed guests from attending the ceremonies in person.” Tickets are being offered as commemorative keepsakes for those unable to attend.

Security measures for the arena and its surroundings remain under discussion between the Secret Service, DC police, and other agencies.

Health and Weather Concerns

Trump emphasized his concerns for the health and safety of attendees, citing the extreme cold as a risk. “I don’t want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way. It is dangerous conditions for the tens of thousands of Law Enforcement, First Responders, Police K9s and even horses, and hundreds of thousands of supporters that will be outside for many hours on the 20th (In any event, if you decide to come, dress warmly!),” he posted on Truth Social.

The last time a U.S. president was inaugurated indoors was in 1985, during Ronald Reagan’s second term. Temperatures that year reached a daytime high of just 7 degrees, with wind chills plunging to -25. Reagan took his oath inside the Capitol Rotunda, and the inaugural parade was canceled.

The dangers of frigid weather during such events are well documented. President William Henry Harrison, in 1841, is believed to have contracted pneumonia after delivering a two-hour inaugural address outdoors without wearing a coat or hat. He died one month later.

Forecast for Inauguration Day

This year’s inauguration day weather is shaping up to be the coldest since Reagan’s second inauguration. Temperatures at noon, when Trump is scheduled to take the oath, are expected to be in the low 20s—approximately 20 degrees below average for this time of year.

Wind gusts of 10 to 20 mph, with peaks of up to 30 mph, will create even harsher conditions, making it feel like 10 degrees during the day and potentially dropping wind chills to single digits after sunset.

A mix of rain and snow is predicted for Sunday, the day before the inauguration, but Monday is forecasted to be dry, albeit cold and windy.

Conclusion

While the decision to move the inauguration indoors prioritizes safety, it has necessitated significant adjustments for attendees and security personnel alike. Capital One Arena and designated viewing venues will play a crucial role in accommodating the public as the nation witnesses this historic event.

U.S. Department of State Enhances Travel and Visa Services to Meet Record Demand

The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has undertaken major initiatives to address unprecedented demand for travel documents and improve accessibility for Americans. With innovative measures and technological advancements, the Department aims to streamline processes and meet the needs of millions of travelers while bolstering the economy.

In 2024, the Department launched its most extensive expansion of passport services in decades, introducing plans to open six new passport agencies across the country. This effort is intended to make essential services more accessible to millions of Americans. That same year, the Department achieved a milestone by reducing passport processing times to 4–6 weeks, the fastest in over five years. Between 2021 and 2024, the Department issued an extraordinary 90 million U.S. passports, bringing the total number of valid passports in circulation to a record-breaking 170 million.

The State Department also highlighted the growing accessibility of travel to the U.S., facilitated by its consular operations. A statement from the Department noted, “Today, more people can safely and securely travel to the United States than ever before. Since 2021, U.S. embassies and consulates abroad have issued approximately 30 million nonimmigrant visas, with a record 11.5 million visas issued in FY 2024 alone. These efforts have facilitated legitimate travel while safeguarding U.S. borders, fueling the $2.3 trillion travel and tourism sector, and supporting an estimated 10 million American jobs.”

One of the Department’s most significant advancements was the September 2024 launch of the Online Passport Renewal (OPR) platform. This new service allows U.S. citizens to complete passport renewals entirely online, including uploading a digital photo. Over 1.5 million citizens have already used the platform, with millions more expected to benefit from its convenience. By integrating OPR and improving staffing and technology, the Department has often exceeded its advertised processing times.

In addition to passport services, visa processing has seen considerable innovation. In 2024, the Department piloted a domestic visa renewal program for skilled workers. This initiative enables visa holders to renew their visas within the U.S., removing the need for international travel. The program has supported over 6,000 applicants from 2,400 companies, minimizing disruptions and enhancing productivity across industries.

To attract and retain global talent in research and academia, the Department revised the Exchange Visitor Skills List. This change aims to support U.S. universities and businesses in advancing cutting-edge work, particularly in science and technology, by fostering innovation and maintaining the nation’s competitive edge.

The Department has also demonstrated its commitment during crises, providing critical support to Americans abroad. Since 2021, more than 10,000 U.S. citizens have been evacuated from high-risk areas, including Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Haiti, Sudan, and Niger. These operations utilized a variety of resources, such as boats, buses, and helicopters. Embassies, consulates, and task forces worked tirelessly to assist Americans in need, underscoring the Department’s dedication to safeguarding its citizens during emergencies.

“We have also empowered U.S. travelers, providing the tools they need to make informed, confident decisions about their overseas travel. By enhancing travel advisories to include warnings about wrongful detentions by foreign governments, we are helping Americans to stay safer abroad,” the statement added.

The Department’s focus on supporting Afghan allies who served alongside U.S. personnel during two decades of conflict has also seen remarkable progress. Since January 2021, over 78,000 Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) have been issued to Afghan allies, accounting for more than half of all SIVs granted since the program’s inception in 2009. This achievement underscores the U.S.’s commitment to honoring those who contributed to its mission and shared its values.

Through these initiatives, the Bureau of Consular Affairs continues to meet growing demand while ensuring the safety, security, and convenience of American and global travelers. Its efforts not only facilitate legitimate travel but also significantly contribute to the economy and uphold U.S. leadership in innovation and global diplomacy.

Jack Smith Defends Rule of Law Amid Controversy Over Trump Investigation

Special counsel Jack Smith, in a highly anticipated report released on Tuesday, defended his team’s work investigating former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Smith emphasized that his decision to bring criminal charges against Trump was firmly rooted in the belief that the evidence would have led to a conviction, had Trump not been re-elected in 2024.

“Our team stood up for the rule of law,” Smith wrote, adding that Trump’s actions were marked by “deceit — knowingly false claims of election fraud — used as a weapon to undermine a fundamental democratic process.”

The report, published just days before Trump’s return to the White House on January 20, casts a harsh light on the Republican leader’s failed attempts to cling to power after losing to Joe Biden in 2020. It serves as the Justice Department’s final account of events that threatened the bedrock principle of a peaceful transfer of power, complementing previously released indictments and investigations.

Trump responded with a defiant post on Truth Social, declaring his innocence and dismissing Smith as “a lamebrain prosecutor who failed to get his case tried before the election.” He concluded with, “THE VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN!!!”

Legal and Procedural Challenges

In August 2023, Trump was indicted on charges related to efforts to overturn the election. However, the case was delayed by appeals and ultimately stymied by a conservative-majority Supreme Court ruling that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

According to Smith’s report, the Supreme Court decision introduced unresolved legal questions that would have required further litigation. While Smith sought to press forward, longstanding Justice Department policies prohibit the indictment or prosecution of a sitting president.

“The Department’s position that the Constitution bars prosecuting a president is absolute and unaffected by the seriousness of the charges or the strength of the evidence,” the report stated. “Had it not been for Mr. Trump’s re-election, we believed the evidence was sufficient to secure a conviction at trial.”

Faced with these constraints, Smith’s team dismissed the indictment in November 2023.

Trump’s Attempts to Subvert the Election

The report provides an exhaustive account of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, describing them as an “unprecedented criminal campaign to retain power.” These included pressuring the Justice Department to pursue baseless fraud claims, orchestrating a scheme involving fake electors in battleground states, and inciting an angry mob to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

One particularly contentious moment occurred when Trump clashed with then-Vice President Mike Pence. On the morning of January 6, Trump urged Pence to refuse to certify the electoral vote count. When Pence resisted, Trump reportedly expressed anger and instructed staff to include language targeting Pence in his speech at the Ellipse.

The report also sheds light on Trump’s attempts to intimidate state and federal officials, judges, and election workers through social media.

“Mr. Trump’s conduct during the investigation and his use of platforms like Twitter to attack those who opposed his false claims of election fraud were part of a broader strategy of intimidation,” Smith wrote.

Defense Against Criticism

In the report, Smith strongly refuted accusations by Trump and his allies that the investigation was politically motivated or carried out in collaboration with the Biden administration.

“The suggestion that our inquiry was influenced by political bias is laughable,” Smith stated, adding, “While we could not bring the case to trial, our commitment to the rule of law and justice remains critical.”

Smith also detailed the obstacles his team faced, including Trump’s frequent invocation of executive privilege to block witness testimony and his use of social media to target prosecutors, witnesses, and courts.

Weighing Charges

The special counsel’s report offers insights into the decisions behind the charges brought against Trump. Smith’s team opted not to charge Trump with incitement due to concerns about free speech and declined to pursue insurrection charges, citing legal uncertainty about trying a sitting president for an offense with no historical precedent.

Additionally, the report confirmed that a separate volume detailing Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago remains sealed.

Closing Reflections

In a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland included with the report, Smith emphasized the broader significance of the investigation.

“Even though we were unable to prosecute the case, the example set by our team — fighting for justice despite personal costs — is what matters most,” Smith wrote.

He concluded with a call to vigilance, urging future administrations to safeguard democratic processes against efforts to subvert them.

Joe Biden’s Tumultuous Presidency: Achievements, Missteps, and the Road to Trump’s Return

Standing at a lectern in Washington’s National Cathedral, Joe Biden eulogized former President Jimmy Carter as three former presidents—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—and Donald Trump looked on. Biden, like Carter, is a one-term president. The parallels were evident as Biden paid tribute to Carter, commending his foresight and achievements in civil rights, peace, nuclear non-proliferation, and environmental protection.

“Many think he was from a bygone era, but in reality, he saw well into the future,” Biden said.

Earlier that week, Biden reflected on his own presidency. “I hope history says I came in with a plan to restore the economy and America’s global leadership,” he stated in an interview. “And I hope it records that I did it with honesty and integrity.”

As Biden prepares to leave office with approval ratings near their lowest at 39%, history’s judgment remains uncertain. His presidency ends with his 2020 opponent, Donald Trump, poised to reclaim power, framing Biden’s tenure as a bridge between Trump’s two terms.

Author and strategist Susan Estrich summarized Biden’s legacy as one tied to Trump. “He’d like his legacy to be that he rescued us from Trump. But sadly, for him, it’s Trump again.”

Early Missteps and Challenges

Biden’s presidency faced setbacks from its early days. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was a turning point. Though the Trump administration had negotiated the exit, Biden approved it despite military advisors’ warnings. The resulting turmoil in Kabul damaged Biden’s approval, which fell below 50% and never recovered.

Domestically, inflation surged past 5% for the first time in 30 years by mid-2021. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Biden initially called it “transitory,” a stance contradicted by economists like Larry Summers. By June 2022, inflation peaked at 9.1%, forcing the administration to concede its miscalculations. Although inflation later dropped below 3%, public sentiment remained pessimistic.

The administration also struggled with the post-Covid surge in undocumented migration and was unprepared for Republican-led efforts to relocate migrants to northern cities. Other crises—shortages in Covid tests, rising egg prices, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade—compounded public dissatisfaction.

While many challenges were global in scope, including the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, they heightened the stakes for Biden, who sought to position Democrats as a competent counterweight to authoritarian regimes.

Biden’s Public Perception

Biden’s communication skills, once praised, appeared diminished. A senior White House official noted, “Watching Biden speak, I’m like, oh my God, this is a different person.” Special counsel Robert Hur’s report on Biden’s handling of classified documents described him as an “elderly man with a poor memory,” reinforcing Republican attacks on his age.

The administration restricted Biden’s media interactions and carefully scripted his public appearances. Yet verbal gaffes and stumbles became ammunition for opponents. Biden’s age became a defining issue, particularly as his performance in public events appeared inconsistent.

Legislative Wins and Long-Term Goals

Despite challenges, Biden’s administration achieved significant legislative milestones. Early successes included the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan, which funded Covid vaccine distribution and reduced child poverty to record lows. His bipartisan infrastructure bill allocated $1 trillion to transportation, clean energy, and broadband expansion.

However, critics like historian Brent Cebul argued that the administration’s focus on long-term policy outcomes was out of sync with voters’ immediate needs. Biden himself admitted the delay in tangible benefits during a later interview.

Internal Struggles and Political Battles

Biden’s team excelled at navigating narrow congressional majorities, but internal dynamics became strained over time. A senior official admitted that as progress stalled, “infighting and frustration” grew. The administration faced mounting Republican opposition, including hearings on Afghanistan, Hunter Biden’s business dealings, and an impeachment inquiry in September 2023.

Biden’s presidency was marked by two distinct phases, says Cebul. The early period saw major accomplishments, but the later years were defined by less focus and greater public dissatisfaction.

A Beleaguered Re-election Campaign

On April 25, 2023, Biden announced his re-election campaign, framing it as a battle against Trump’s “extremists.” He championed “Bidenomics,” touting economic growth and inflation reduction. However, his message failed to resonate with many Americans.

During a June 2023 trip to Chicago, Biden emphasized restoring the American dream. “Bidenomics is about the future,” he declared. Yet his halting delivery and missteps undermined the message. Cebul criticized Biden’s focus on economic success, calling it “discordant” given public sentiment.

Despite internal and external doubts, Biden maintained he was the best candidate to defeat Trump. “I’m not a young guy,” he acknowledged in a campaign ad, “but I understand how to get things done for the American people.”

New Crises: Hamas and Hunter Biden

The October 7 Hamas attack on Israel added another challenge to Biden’s presidency. While Biden cautioned Israel against overreach, domestic support for his handling of the conflict waned.

Meanwhile, Hunter Biden’s legal troubles, including a gun charge conviction and tax-related indictments, became a distraction. Biden’s decision to pardon his son after November’s election drew widespread criticism.

The End of a Presidency

Biden’s campaign effectively ended during a June debate with Trump in Atlanta. His confused performance reinforced concerns about his age and capabilities. Trump’s subsequent resurgence, marked by a unified party convention and response to an assassination attempt, solidified his lead.

In July, Biden withdrew from the race. Kamala Harris, Biden’s chosen successor, lost to Trump in the general election, sealing the final judgment on Biden’s political career as one of defeat.

Reflecting on Biden’s decision to seek re-election, Estrich argued, “We should have had primaries. His successor would have had time to make the case.”

Biden’s Legacy in Retrospect

Had Biden stepped aside after one term, his legacy might have been different. Avoiding a grueling campaign could have allowed him to be remembered for legislative achievements rather than missteps.

With Trump’s imminent return to office, much of Biden’s work faces potential dismantling. Attorney General Merrick Garland succinctly captured the uncertainty surrounding Biden’s legacy: “I’ll leave that to the historians.”

As Biden departs the White House, his presidency is framed by the successes of his early years and the challenges that defined its conclusion. His ultimate place in history rests on how the next chapter of American politics unfolds.

Wind-Fueled Wildfires Threaten Los Angeles Area, Push Firefighters to Their Limits

A growing force of firefighters arrived in the Los Angeles area on Monday, preparing for another round of fierce winds expected to spark new wildfires and potentially undo recent progress in battling devastating blazes. These wildfires have already claimed at least 24 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.

Reinforcements, including water trucks and planes loaded with fire retardants, came from across the United States as well as Canada and Mexico. The National Weather Service warned that conditions over the next few days could turn “particularly dangerous,” with gusts in the mountains expected to reach up to 65 mph (105 kph). Dennis Burns, a fire behavior analyst, cautioned at a community meeting on Sunday night that Tuesday would likely be the most perilous day.

Sunday’s relative lull allowed some evacuees to return home, but the respite also brought grim news: the death toll rose late Sunday after a report from the Los Angeles County medical examiner. Authorities revealed that 16 people remained missing, with the number expected to climb further as search efforts continued.

In a chilling reminder of the destruction, a car drove past homes and vehicles reduced to ash by the Palisades Fire in the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates on Sunday, January 12, 2025. The area has become emblematic of the destruction caused by the Santa Ana winds, which have been a key factor in turning last week’s small wildfires into raging infernos.

The fires have ravaged areas around Los Angeles, a region that has seen no significant rainfall for over eight months. In less than a week, four major wildfires have consumed more than 62 square miles (160 square kilometers), an area roughly three times the size of Manhattan.

The Eaton Fire near Pasadena and the Palisades Fire along the Pacific Coast have been particularly destructive. While firefighters have made significant strides in containing these blazes, with the Eaton Fire now about one-third contained, the forecasted high winds could exacerbate the situation. These conditions may lead to rapid fire growth and spark new blazes in areas that have so far remained unscathed, creating additional challenges for already exhausted crews.

“We are prepared for the upcoming wind event,” said Los Angeles County Fire Chief Anthony C. Marrone. He confirmed the arrival of 70 additional water trucks to bolster efforts against flames that could spread quickly with the renewed gusts. Fire retardants dropped by aircraft are being deployed to create barriers along vulnerable hillsides, offering some hope of limiting the damage.

Meanwhile, residents have taken matters into their own hands in some areas. In Topanga Canyon, a community of artists, musicians, and friends joined forces to prevent fires from spreading by shutting off gas lines and propane tanks. Their quick actions may have saved several homes, according to Derek Mabra, who witnessed the devastation firsthand.

“We helped hopefully save a couple of houses, and we put out a couple of spot fires,” Mabra said as he drove along the coast, surveying the destruction. “It’s complete and total devastation.”

As the battle against these wildfires continues, firefighters and residents alike brace for the dangerous winds ahead, knowing that their efforts over the coming days could be the difference between further catastrophe and eventual recovery.

Paris Hilton Shares Heartbreak Over Malibu Home Lost in Pacific Palisades Fire

Paris Hilton has shared her grief and devastation over the Pacific Palisades Fire, returning to the ruins of her Malibu home and expressing hope that Los Angeles will rebuild and recover from this tragedy.

The socialite and reality television star posted a video of herself walking through what remains of her once-beautiful home. The clip captures the heartbreaking scene, with walls reduced to rubble and small flames still smoldering amid the destruction. “There’s nothing left to destroy,” she revealed, as the fire had consumed everything.

In an emotional caption accompanying the video shared Thursday night, Paris described her pain as “indescribable” and likened it to her heart shattering into “a million pieces.” She reflected on the cherished memories she created in the home with her family, noting how the loss was even harder to bear knowing that thousands of others are enduring the same sorrow.

Despite the tragedy, Paris acknowledged her fortune in the midst of such devastation, emphasizing the safety of her loved ones, including her children and pets. “I am so grateful that everyone I love is safe,” she wrote, extending her heartfelt gratitude to the first responders who have risked their lives to battle the flames and protect others.

In a message of resilience, Paris promised that Los Angeles would rise again. “We will rebuild, heal, and rise like a phoenix from the ashes,” she stated, urging people to hold their loved ones close and to treasure every moment.

Earlier this week, Paris learned of her Malibu property’s destruction. While the beachfront home was not her primary residence, its loss remains deeply personal. Paris, known for her luxurious lifestyle and multiple homes, has shown that even icons of glamour are not immune to the impact of such disasters.

In the wake of the tragedy, Paris has received an outpouring of support from her famous friends. Celebrities like Jessica Alba and Gigi Gorgeous have reached out on social media, sending love and strength during this challenging time.

The Pacific Palisades Fire continues to rage, having already burned through nearly 20,000 acres of land. The fire is one of several blazes wreaking havoc across the region, including the Eaton Fire in northeastern Los Angeles. As these wildfires persist, they serve as a stark reminder of the immense challenges communities face in recovering and rebuilding.

Paris Hilton’s story reflects not only her personal loss but also the collective grief and resilience of those affected by this devastating natural disaster.

Trump Sentenced in “Hush Money” Case, Escapes Jail Time

On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump appeared virtually from his Mar-a-Lago residence for his sentencing in the New York “hush money” case. He was granted an unconditional discharge, meaning he faced no jail time or other restrictions ahead of his inauguration on January 20. Justice Juan Merchan, who had made a promise a week earlier, adhered to his commitment by giving Trump a sentence free of any conditions that could hinder his presidency.

Merchan explained that the decision stemmed from his belief that it was the only legal option, considering Trump was just 10 days away from assuming office. He remarked that while the trial had been extraordinary in nature, the trial itself had followed normal legal procedures. However, Merchan noted that the circumstances surrounding Trump’s sentencing were unprecedented due to his imminent return to the presidency. He clarified that the extraordinary nature of the case was not linked to Trump, but rather the legal protections afforded by the office of the president. “This has been a truly extraordinary case,” Merchan remarked. “But because of the office you once occupied and will soon occupy again, the legal protections afforded to the office were extraordinary.”

The judge emphasized that these protections, although significant, were not a mitigating factor. They did not reduce the seriousness of the crimes Trump was convicted for, nor did they erase the jury’s verdict. Merchan concluded that the only lawful sentence, one that did not encroach on the office of the president, was an unconditional discharge. He stated that had Trump been a civilian, he may not have received such leniency.

During the proceedings, Trump was seen virtually alongside his attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump had the opportunity to address the court, describing the trial as “a very terrible experience” and “a tremendous setback for New York.” He expressed his frustration at being indicted for what he believed was a legitimate expense. “With all the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted for calling a legal expense a legal expense,” Trump stated, referring to the falsified reimbursements that formed the heart of the case.

Trump called the investigation a “political witch hunt” aimed at damaging his reputation and preventing his victory in the 2016 election. “It was done to damage my reputation so that I’d lose the election, and obviously, that didn’t work,” he added. Trump also maintained his innocence, stating, “The fact is I’m totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, ahead of the sentencing, accused Trump of attacking the judicial system and prosecutors. He argued that Trump’s actions had been a direct assault on the rule of law and that the former president had not expressed any remorse for his crimes. “Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law,” Steinglass stated. “He’s done this to serve his own ends, and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful.”

Steinglass further argued that Trump’s actions had caused lasting harm to public perception of the criminal justice system, endangering officers of the court. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was present in the courtroom but chose not to address the court during the proceedings.

Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, disagreed with Steinglass’ assessment, claiming that not only Trump but also experts and many American citizens, particularly those who voted for Trump, felt the case should never have been pursued. He asserted that the prosecution was unjust and echoed Trump’s sentiment that the case was politically motivated. “It’s not just Trump and experts cited by Trump who feel the case should not have been brought, but the majority of the American people, particularly those who voted for the Republican in November,” Blanche stated.

Trump’s legal team had been battling Manhattan prosecutors since 2018, when the “hush money” investigation began. They contested subpoenas and rulings by Merchan, even taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court multiple times. One such instance occurred earlier this week, when the court refused to intervene on Trump’s behalf, clearing the way for the sentencing.

After the high court’s decision, Trump expressed his thoughts, admitting that he found the Supreme Court’s decision fair. “I thought it was a fair decision, actually,” Trump said, noting that the justices had pointed out that Trump could appeal the case. However, he made it clear that an appeal was forthcoming. “But we’re going to appeal anyway,” he stated. “So, I’ll do my little thing tomorrow. They can have fun with their political opponent,” Trump added.

The courtroom, although without cameras, was the site of significant public interest. While the trial had attracted large crowds in earlier proceedings, the general public line for the sentencing was notably sparse. No onlookers were visible outside the courthouse on Friday morning, with no large crowds forming in the park across the street, a stark contrast to previous days.

In May, Trump had been found guilty by a jury of 34 felonies, including his role in authorizing a scheme to falsify records. This was done to cover up reimbursements for the $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who testified during the trial. Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who acted as his “fixer,” also provided testimony, confirming that the reimbursement was to silence Daniels regarding an alleged affair with Trump prior to the 2016 election. Multiple witnesses testified that Trump was relieved that the story did not break before the election.

Throughout the trial, Trump had been held in contempt 10 times by Merchan for violating a gag order that prevented him from making public statements about court witnesses, staff, and others involved in the case. The 10th contempt citation, which came just before sentencing, foreshadowed the likelihood of the discharge sentence. Merchan had made it clear during the trial that he was reluctant to imprison Trump. “The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail,” Merchan had said earlier in the proceedings.

As the sentencing concluded, Merchan extended a final remark to Trump, saying, “the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching on the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge. Godspeed as you assume your second term in office.”

Deadly Wildfires Ravage Los Angeles County, Forcing Mass Evacuations

The ongoing wildfires in Los Angeles County have created apocalyptic scenes, with devastation widespread and authorities scrambling to respond. These infernos, which remain largely uncontained, have claimed at least five lives, though officials admit the true death toll remains uncertain. “Frankly, we don’t know,” said officials on Thursday, highlighting the unpredictability of the situation. Evacuation orders have been issued for nearly 180,000 residents as firefighters battle to contain the flames.

Thousands of Homes Destroyed by Palisades Fire

The Palisades Fire, which continues to ravage the coastal stretch between Malibu and Santa Monica, has earned the grim distinction of being the most destructive wildfire in Los Angeles County’s history. Preliminary assessments suggest the number of structures either damaged or obliterated is likely “in the thousands,” according to Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley. Firefighters are still evaluating the extent of the damage.

A Day of Temporary Relief Amidst Persistent Danger

A slight lull in the Santa Ana winds on Thursday morning provided a window for firefighters to conduct water-dumping operations from the air. However, this respite was short-lived as strong winds, with gusts of up to 60 miles per hour, are forecast to persist throughout the day. The situation remains perilous for residents, with fire-related pollution and unsafe water supplies adding to the risks. Smoke and ash from the fires can travel far and have significant health impacts, penetrating deep into the lungs and bloodstream.

Infrastructure Severely Damaged

Mark Pestrella, Los Angeles County’s Public Works Director, reported extensive damage to the county’s sewer, power, and transportation systems. “The heat of this system, the wind that blew also knocked down thousands of trees in the roadways,” he said, emphasizing the enormous amount of debris clogging affected communities.

Efforts are underway to safely clear hazardous materials from properties, but Pestrella cautioned residents against attempting to remove debris themselves. “It is not safe to touch the debris, it is not safe to remove the debris yourselves,” he warned, describing the materials as potentially toxic.

Devastation Compared to a War Zone

Sheriff Robert Luna likened the destruction in some areas to the aftermath of a bombing. “Some areas look like a bomb was dropped in them,” he said, noting that officials are still unable to confirm the total number of fatalities. Search teams, including cadaver dogs, will eventually comb through the hardest-hit areas, though Luna expressed hope that they wouldn’t uncover many more deaths.

“We don’t know what to expect,” the sheriff admitted. “We’re working with our coroner’s office, and we’ll figure out those numbers. Right now, frankly, we don’t know yet. We eventually will.”

Evacuation Orders and Warnings Affect Nearly 380,000 Residents

As of Thursday, 179,783 residents in Los Angeles County are under mandatory evacuation orders, with another 200,000 on evacuation warnings, meaning they must be prepared to leave at a moment’s notice. Sheriff Luna urged residents to take these warnings seriously.

“The refusal of some people to heed evacuation orders is putting law enforcement officers’ lives in danger,” he said. “I cannot emphasize enough that I urge residents that are asked to evacuate to follow our warnings.”

Palisades Fire: A Historic Natural Disaster

Fire Chief Kristin Crowley described the Palisades Fire, which ignited on January 7, as “one of the most destructive natural disasters in the history of Los Angeles.” As of Thursday morning, the blaze had consumed 17,234 acres with no containment in sight.

“Extreme fire behavior continues to challenge firefighting efforts,” Crowley said, noting that fierce winds are exacerbating the situation. The destruction caused by this fire alone has left an indelible mark on the region.

Despite the ongoing battle, the safety of residents and first responders remains paramount. Crowley urged vigilance, noting the unpredictability and danger posed by these wildfires.

Active Wildfires in California Started Acres Burned Pct. Contained
Palisades Fire Jan. 7 17,234 0%
Eaton Fire Jan. 7 10,600 0%
Hurst Fire Jan. 7 855 10%
Lidia Fire Jan. 8 348 40%
Sunset Fire Jan. 8 42.8 0%

Wildfires Ravage Los Angeles County, Forcing Mass Evacuations

Los Angeles County is grappling with seven wildfires that have ignited chaos across various neighborhoods, including Pacific Palisades, Sylmar, and areas near Pasadena. The fires, which erupted on Wednesday, have left thousands of residents in peril as they battle to protect their homes and lives.

The fires currently raging across the county include the Palisades Fire, Eaton Fire, Hurst Fire, Lidia Fire, and Sunset Fire, according to CAL FIRE. These blazes have triggered widespread evacuations and overwhelmed local resources.

The Eaton Fire has been particularly devastating, claiming at least five lives as of Wednesday night. Authorities report that it remains completely uncontained, with crews struggling to make progress. The Palisades Fire, another major threat, is similarly at 0% containment, compounding fears of further destruction.

Meanwhile, the Sunset Fire, which erupted near the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday evening, appears to be under control. Officials speaking to Fox News expressed cautious optimism about this blaze, suggesting it might not pose an immediate threat.

The wildfires have prompted evacuation orders for hundreds of thousands of residents as flames advance toward densely populated areas. Local authorities estimate that at least 28,000 structures are currently at risk.

Adding to the chaos, power outages have left over 536,600 residents without electricity as of Wednesday afternoon, according to utility companies in the region. These outages have further complicated efforts to communicate evacuation notices and coordinate responses.

The fires are being driven by powerful Santa Ana winds originating from the east, a common yet destructive weather phenomenon in Southern California. Officials have warned that these winds could intensify, potentially worsening the already dire situation.

As residents brace for more challenges, local authorities and firefighting teams continue their relentless battle against the flames, hoping to bring some measure of relief to those affected. “The worst is yet to come,” officials cautioned, highlighting the unpredictable and dangerous nature of the fires.

This ongoing crisis underscores the vulnerability of the region to wildfire disasters, with dry conditions and strong winds creating a volatile environment for flames to spread rapidly.

Trump’s Business Ventures Raise Ethical Concerns Amid Presidential Transition

In the two months since his election victory, President-elect Donald Trump has utilized his social media platform, Truth Social, to market a variety of Trump-branded products. Among the offerings are limited-edition signature guitars, fragrances described as epitomizing “winning,” and watches. Recently, an $899 gold-plated inauguration edition joined the Trump watch collection, launched earlier this year. His sneaker line now features footwear adorned with a map of his electoral success.

These product promotions underscore the intricate link between Trump’s political persona and his business empire. However, with less than two weeks until his inauguration, Trump and the Trump Organization have yet to clarify how they plan to separate his multifaceted business interests—spanning real estate, golf resorts, licensing deals, and even cryptocurrency—from his presidential duties.

Recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveal that Trump has transferred his shares in Truth Social’s parent company into a longstanding trust, where he remains the sole beneficiary. His eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., acts as the trustee. Yet, ethics experts argue this measure falls short of the blind trusts and divestitures adopted by previous presidents to avoid conflicts of interest.

Notably, the Trump Organization appears poised to impose fewer restrictions on its business dealings compared to Trump’s first term. Eric Trump, who manages the company’s daily operations, has confirmed the company’s intent to pursue international ventures, abandoning a self-imposed ban on foreign deals from Trump’s earlier presidency.

Kedric Payne, senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, observed, “The marketing activity around Donald Trump’s return to the White House indicates that there is clearly a focus on monetizing the presidency.” He added, “The concern is that he will now use the presidency to benefit himself and his family beyond what is imaginable.”

Payne also noted that Trump, no longer seeking voter approval for another term, has minimal incentive to address potential conflicts of interest. “His supporters were well aware of the conflicts and did not view it as disqualifying,” Payne remarked.

Trump’s spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, defended the president-elect, emphasizing his altruistic motivations. “President Trump removed himself from his multi-billion-dollar real estate empire to run for office and forewent his government salary, becoming the first President to actually lose net worth while serving in the White House,” she said. “Unlike most politicians, President Trump didn’t get into politics for profit—he’s fighting because he loves the people of this country and wants to make America great again.”

Despite such assertions, the president-elect’s transition team declined to elaborate on plans to address ethical concerns. Eric Trump and other company representatives did not respond to inquiries about their strategies for a potential second term.

Ethics challenges were evident at a recent Mar-a-Lago event. Eric Trump met with Hussain Sajwani, a UAE-based billionaire and longtime business associate. Shortly thereafter, Donald Trump announced Sajwani’s pledge to invest $20 billion in U.S. data center projects, while reiterating his intent to streamline federal permitting for major corporate initiatives. Eric Trump attended the announcement but remained in the background.

The Trump family’s business dealings extend beyond real estate. Recently, Eric Trump promoted World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency platform, at a conference in the UAE. Investors in the venture include cryptocurrency entrepreneur Justin Sun, accused of securities law violations by the SEC in 2023, though Sun has denied wrongdoing. Sun reportedly invested $30 million in the Trump family enterprise.

Trump’s business partners may benefit from his stated commitment to fostering a crypto-friendly administration. He has already named David Sacks, a close ally and donor, as the head of cryptocurrency policy in his upcoming administration. Steve Witkoff, another Trump business partner, was recently named Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East. At a Mar-a-Lago press conference, Witkoff referenced prior work with the Biden administration on a hostage deal involving Hamas and Israel.

Presidents are exempt from many conflict-of-interest laws that govern other federal officials, but previous presidents have taken steps to eliminate even the appearance of impropriety. For instance, George W. Bush sold his Texas Rangers baseball team stake before entering politics. When Trump first became president in 2016, he placed his assets in a trust but retained ownership, delegating management to his sons and a senior executive. Critics called this insufficient, as it failed to resolve potential conflicts.

Trump’s initial presidency included a self-imposed ban on new foreign deals. However, Eric Trump recently stated the company would pursue overseas opportunities, though it would not work directly with foreign governments.

Meanwhile, the Trump Organization continues to profit from his political brand. Trump’s recent campaign launched numerous products, including shoes, watches, coins, and NFTs, through licensing agreements. Limited information is available about these ventures, as many partners operate under opaque business entities. For example, efforts to trace the manufacturer of Trump’s luxury watches, including a $100,000 model, led only to a nondescript Wyoming office, a state known for lenient disclosure laws.

The Trump Store is already capitalizing on his anticipated return to power, selling memorabilia such as polo shirts, mugs, and glasses featuring “45” and “47” to mark Trump’s place in presidential history. However, questions remain about whether Trump will continue leveraging his presidential role to promote business ventures once inaugurated.

Critics argue that Trump’s dual focus on politics and profit represents a departure from precedent. Previous presidents, including Barack Obama and George W. Bush, avoided personal profit-driven endeavors during their tenures. In contrast, Trump’s entrepreneurial activities remain intertwined with his public office.

Ethics experts warn that Trump’s unique approach to blending politics and business could set new and potentially troubling precedents. “The blurred lines between Trump’s personal financial interests and his political decisions will inevitably raise questions,” Payne said.

For now, Trump has yet to address how he will separate his commercial pursuits from his official responsibilities, leaving watchdogs and voters uncertain about what lies ahead.

Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump

(Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat, represents New York’s 3rd Congressional District. He is a former Nassau County Executive and the Mayor of Glen Cove on Long Island.)

President-elect Donald Trump and the Republicans have managed to sell themselves as the party of change. It worked: They will soon control the presidency, Congress and, in essence, the Supreme Court. But to change and fix America requires both parties to work together. As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn: uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt.

That would be a mistake. Only by working together to find compromise on parts of Mr. Trump’s agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues.

I’m no dupe: Some of Mr. Trump’s actions offer little reassurance that he is ready to embrace the bipartisanship and compromise essential to a functioning democracy. His radical cabinet picks, such as the Project 2025 contributor Russell Vought and Matt Gaetz (now withdrawn); his last-minute demands on last month’s government funding bill; and the recent demonstrations of hubris, such as Republicans bringing Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to Capitol Hill and refusing to include Democrats in the meetings, offer no reason for optimism about compromise.

Rep Tom Suozzi 1

But if Mr. Trump wants to have a more effective presidency than he had in his first term, he needs to embrace his inner dealmaker and negotiate with the other party that holds just shy of half of the seats on Capitol Hill and key governorships around the country. And if he does that work, Democrats should meet him halfway rather than be the Party of No.

I know many voters reject my party’s significant leftward shift. So do I. But as a common-sense Democrat who won in a district that Mr. Trump also won, I am certain our closely divided electorate would rather have bipartisan solutions than political gridlock. After Mr. Trump almost caused a federal shutdown with the funding bill antics, the government was able to stay open only through Democrats joining with some Republicans to pass compromise legislation. Americans shouldn’t have to hold their breath to see if we’ll do the right thing together.

The election was a mandate. But it wasn’t for one-party rule — Mr. Trump won with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, and Republicans have thin majorities in the House and the Senate. But as I see it, the results of the 2024 campaign were a mandate for border security, immigration reform, low inflation, economic stability and common ground on culture-war fights. That’s good for America. So let’s make that our shared agenda in 2025. There are a majority of votes for all of it.

And let’s try something different when it comes to the president-elect.

Rep Tom Suozzi

Since the day Mr. Trump announced his candidacy at the tower bearing his name almost 10 years ago, many politicians, pundits, activists and members of the news media have detailed every one of his failings and missteps. Every word he’s ever spoken has been criticized. Yet he just won again. People are exhausted by the endless finger-pointing, nit-picking and daily battling for political advantage. They want leaders to work together to get things done.

Some members of my party and left-leaning advocacy groups are now branding themselves as the leaders of a national “resistance” movement, reflexively opposing ideas from the incoming administration. That’s a bad idea.

Resistance has a role. During the prior Trump presidency, I resisted his efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act and to deport the Dreamers. And we can and should continue to resist Mr. Trump’s efforts to retaliate against his perceived political enemies by weaponizing the Justice Department, his pledge to gut policies that combat climate change and protect our environment, and his threat to bring the United States back to an isolationist view of the world. To lead effectively, we must find common ground, build consensus and offer solutions. Democrats must resist when necessary, but our general outlook must be to go beyond resistance and articulate a vision that inspires.

For instance, while it is essential to secure the border and deport criminals, we must also reform the broken asylum system and modernize legal immigration to provide pathways to legalization for Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status recipients and farmworkers. Immigration must be governed by the rule of law while protecting immigrant families from fear and ensuring our economy is kept stable while treating human beings like human beings.

Under President Biden, Democrats refocused national policy on rebuilding the middle class by creating solid job opportunities with the Infrastructure Law and promoting manufacturing under the CHIPs Act. Unfortunately, we failed to communicate the effort effectively. While Mr. Biden was often quoted saying, “It’s time to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out,” no one really understood that he was talking about creating more solidly middle-class jobs and putting forth a real policy to do just that.

Republicans claim they are for working families, but it is Democrats who support an increase in the minimum wage, adoption of the union-friendly PRO Act and a robust enhancement of the child tax credit. Voters need to hear that.

Democrats cannot abandon our zeal to combat climate change. At the same time, let’s balance our commitment to environmental protection with pragmatic measures that safeguard affordable utility bills and manageable costs at the pump. Let’s move beyond the relentless attacks on widely held religious values while ensuring that the rights, safety and dignity of all are upheld. And Democrats should be supportive of efforts to make government more efficient and effective, but we must fiercely defend and advocate the strengthening of Social Security, Medicare and the Affordable Care Act.

Both parties should seek new ideas and leaders to demonstrate a willingness to break away from the restrictive orthodox ideologies of some of the more extreme members of the Democrats’ Progressive Caucus and the Republicans’ Freedom Caucus, who limit our ability to seek common ground and get things done.

This time in history is both a warning and an opportunity. My New Year’s resolution is to rise above partisanship and bickering, reject extremism and embrace common sense, and keep building relationships with Republicans and Democrats to get things done. I’ll work with anyone who wants to solve problems and make things better for people, but I’ll never abandon my values. If Republicans and Democrats choose the path of division and overreach, they will deepen the partisan divides that have already weakened our democracy. But if they embrace bipartisanship and cooperation, 2025 can be a better year for all Americans. We have to remember that the ultimate goal of government should be serving the American people, not our respective parties.

Majority of Congress Members Remain Christian, Pew Research Report Reveals

A new Pew Research Center report, titled Faith on the Hill, sheds light on the religious makeup of the 119th Congress, which is convening today. According to the findings, the vast majority of members in the Senate and House of Representatives continue to identify as Christian.

The data for the report was gathered by CQ Roll Call, a publication known for tracking congressional activities and maintaining legislative data. To gather accurate religious affiliation information, the publication sends questionnaires to incoming members of Congress and follows up with re-elected members.

“Christians will make up 87% of voting members in the Senate and House of Representatives, combined, in the 2025-27 congressional session,” the report states.

Although the number of Christian members of Congress has slightly declined from the previous session’s 88% and from a decade ago, when it stood at 92%, the overall representation of Christians in Congress remains significantly higher than in the general American population. Currently, less than two-thirds of Americans, specifically 62%, identify as Christian.

In stark contrast to the American public, the report highlights that less than 1% of Congress members identify as religiously unaffiliated, often referred to as “nones.” In fact, while “nones” comprise 28% of the U.S. population, only three members of Congress reported having no religious affiliation. This marks an increase of two non-religious members from the previous session.

The 119th Congress will include 71 non-Christian members, a rise of six members compared to the previous session. Among them are 32 Jews, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, three Buddhists, three members who are unaffiliated, and one Humanist. Notably, all but five of these non-Christian members are affiliated with the Democratic Party.

In terms of Christian representation, the new Congress will have 461 Christian members. Of these, 295 are Protestant. As in previous years, Baptists are the most represented denomination, with 75 Baptist members, a rise of eight from the last session. While the report does not specify the exact Baptist group these members align with, it is clear that Baptists remain a dominant force in Congress. Other notable Protestant denominations include Methodists and Presbyterians, both with 26 members each, Episcopalians with 22 members, and Lutherans with 19 members.

The presence of these denominations has diminished in recent years, both within the general American population and in Congress. When the report first debuted in 2011, the religious representation for the 112th Congress showed 51 Methodists, 45 Presbyterians, 41 Episcopalians, and 26 Lutherans. Over the last decade, their numbers have steadily declined.

Notably, Baptists make up a slightly higher percentage in the House of Representatives (15%) than in the Senate (12%). Similarly, Catholics are more prominent in the House, accounting for 29% of its members, compared to 24% in the Senate. Conversely, denominations like Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans are more prevalent in the Senate than in the House.

The report also observes that, of the 295 Protestant members, 101 did not provide specific details on their denomination. Many gave vague responses like “Protestant” or “evangelical Protestant.” This marks a significant shift compared to a decade ago. In 2015, during the 114th Congress, only 58 members reported being “just Christian” without specifying a denomination.

Regarding party affiliation, Republicans continue to exhibit a higher rate of Christian identification. Of the 218 Republican members, 98% are Christian. Only five Republican members identify as non-Christians — three as Jewish, one as religiously unaffiliated, and one declined to respond to the question of religious affiliation. On the other hand, while both Democrats and Republicans are largely Protestant, the Democratic Party has a notably higher percentage of Catholics, with 32% of Democratic members identifying as Catholic, compared to 25% of Republicans.

Religious diversity is much more pronounced within the Democratic Party. While roughly three-quarters of Democratic members are Christian, the party also includes 29 Jews, three Buddhists, four Muslims, four Hindus, three Unitarian Universalists, one Humanist, and two members who are unaffiliated. Additionally, 20 Democratic members declined to disclose their religious affiliation.

The 119th Congress also includes 166 non-Protestant Christians, 150 of whom are Catholic, nine members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (all Republicans), and six Orthodox Christians. Notably, one Republican member identifies as a Messianic Jew.

The religious affiliation of 21 members remains unreported, either because they chose not to disclose it or were unreachable for comment. The analysis also did not include Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, who will become vice president on January 20, Representative Matt Gaetz, who resigned amidst allegations of sexual misconduct, or Representative Michael Waltz, who announced his resignation to serve as a national security adviser to the Trump administration. All three had reported being Christian.

In summary, the new Pew Research report on the 119th Congress paints a picture of a legislative body that remains predominantly Christian, even as the share of Christians within the U.S. population continues to decrease. While the religious composition of Congress has become slightly more diverse in recent years, the overwhelming majority of members still identify with one form or another of Christianity. The report also highlights the political implications of these trends, showing clear differences in religious diversity between the Republican and Democratic parties. Despite these shifts, the balance of religious representation in Congress continues to reflect a nation whose roots remain firmly grounded in Christianity, though the face of that belief system is changing in subtle ways.

Trump’s Coalition Faces Rift: Immigration Debate Sparks MAGA Tensions

Donald Trump’s coalition is showing signs of strain even before his anticipated inauguration, with open conflict erupting between his billionaire supporters and his working-class base. Analysts view this as a glimpse into the challenges that could fracture his fragile alliance, especially over contentious issues like immigration policy.

At the heart of the debate is whether to embrace skilled foreign workers. This issue has revealed deep divisions between staunch immigration hardliners who have backed Trump from the beginning and wealthy tech moguls who invested heavily in his reelection campaign.

These tensions have prompted prominent figures in Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) movement to criticize what they see as the irony of a populist agenda being influenced by the ultra-rich.

“I think this most recent war of words between traditional MAGA and big-tech MAGA was an opening salvo in a long-running battle over the future of the MAGA movement,” said Flavio Hickel, a political analyst, in an interview with AFP.

Tech Titans vs. Immigration Hardliners

Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, leads the Silicon Valley faction of Trump’s coalition. Musk, a South African-born entrepreneur, contributed a staggering $250 million to Trump’s campaign, even as Trump emphasized anti-immigrant rhetoric.

However, Musk’s support for visas for skilled foreign workers quickly made him a target of MAGA loyalists. Many in the movement oppose any form of immigration that they believe undermines American jobs, a sentiment that extends to Musk’s own business practices.

Hickel noted that figures like Musk and other tech leaders such as Vivek Ramaswamy are ideologically libertarian and prioritize conservative economic goals, including budget discipline and legal immigration reform. “Traditional MAGA seems to care little about the budget and found Trump’s nativism to be the most appealing feature of his candidacies,” Hickel explained.

This internal conflict, labeled “Oligarchs vs. Nativists” by U.S. media, escalated when Musk lashed out at his critics within the MAGA base, calling them “contemptible fools.” Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist and a prominent MAGA figure, responded sharply on his War Room podcast, warning Musk to tread carefully.

“I’ll rip (Musk’s) face off,” Bannon declared, accusing the billionaire of undermining MAGA principles. He urged Musk and other newcomers to the movement to “sit back and study” its core belief in prioritizing American workers.

Bannon has called for reparations from Silicon Valley, blaming the tech industry for displacing middle-class American workers. “The visa issue is central to the way they gutted the middle class in this country,” he said.

Trump’s Position

Trump, whose wealth is estimated at $5.5 billion, has aligned himself with Silicon Valley on this issue, surprising many of his blue-collar supporters. This stance has even drawn criticism from moderates within his party, including Nikki Haley, his former UN ambassador.

Yet Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University, believes Trump’s broader coalition strategy may explain his actions. “He knows he has to deliver on the economy — the issue that brought him to the White House — so kicking the tech sector in the teeth is bad politics,” Nieman told AFP.

Some analysts argue that this rift could ultimately weaken Musk’s influence within the movement. Trump has always relied on his appeal to working-class voters and may prioritize their support over the financial backing of Silicon Valley elites.

Others, however, suggest that the influx of tech money might permanently reshape MAGA. Trump, known for his pragmatism, may choose to steer the movement toward the center rather than letting his base push him further to the right.

Future of MAGA

Jeff Le, a former deputy cabinet secretary for California Governor Jerry Brown, who worked on immigration policy during Trump’s first term, believes the conflict reflects a broader philosophical divide.

“The tension between Mr. Musk, Mr. Ramaswamy… (and) Mr. Bannon and the MAGA wing represents significant philosophical differences,” Le said.

Le also noted that Trump’s base might remain loyal if he focuses on other immigration measures, such as expanded judicial authority, aggressive ICE enforcement, and enhanced border security. “If Mr. Trump continues to emphasize other tools for immigration reform… his base will likely stick with Mr. Trump,” he added.

As Trump’s coalition grapples with these divisions, the resolution of this conflict will likely define the future of the MAGA movement. Whether Trump can balance the interests of his billionaire backers and his working-class supporters remains an open question, but the outcome will undoubtedly shape the direction of his political agenda.

Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and Denzel Washington to Receive Highest US Civilian Honor

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, renowned philanthropist George Soros, and celebrated actor-director Denzel Washington will receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the United States’ highest civilian honor. The awards will be presented in a White House ceremony on Saturday, marking a significant moment of recognition for their contributions to society.

President Joe Biden will confer the honor on 19 prominent individuals across various fields, including politics, sports, entertainment, civil rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and science. The White House has described the honorees as individuals who have made “exemplary contributions to the prosperity, values, or security of the United States, world peace, or other significant societal, public or private endeavors.”

Posthumous Honors for Four Figures

Four of the 19 medals will be awarded posthumously. One recipient is Fannie Lou Hamer, a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement who founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Her efforts laid the groundwork for the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Another is Robert F. Kennedy, the former attorney general and senator known for his advocacy for justice and equality.

George W. Romney, a former Michigan governor and secretary of housing and urban development, will also be honored. Romney is recognized for his significant public service and contributions to governance. Notably, he is the father of former Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney, a leading conservative critic of Donald Trump.

Ash Carter, a former secretary of defense who played a key role in shaping U.S. defense policy, is the fourth posthumous recipient.

Major Figures in Philanthropy Recognized

The awards also highlight prominent philanthropists. Chef José Andrés, a Spanish-American culinary icon, is among the honorees. Andrés’ World Central Kitchen has become one of the most recognizable food relief organizations globally, providing meals to communities in crisis.

Bono, the lead singer of U2 and a passionate advocate for social justice, will also be honored. Known for his work in addressing global poverty and health issues, Bono has long been a figure at the intersection of art and activism.

Sports and Entertainment Icons Honored

In the realm of sports and entertainment, several distinguished figures are being recognized. Lionel Messi, widely regarded as one of the greatest soccer players in history, is among the recipients. His influence extends beyond the field, inspiring millions worldwide with his achievements and dedication.

Earvin “Magic” Johnson, the legendary retired Los Angeles Lakers basketball player and successful businessman, will also receive the honor. Johnson’s contributions to sports and his work as an advocate for HIV/AIDS awareness have cemented his legacy.

Actor Michael J. Fox, renowned for his roles in television and film, will be awarded for his advocacy in Parkinson’s disease research. Fox’s openness about his own diagnosis has brought significant attention and funding to the cause.

William Sanford Nye, affectionately known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” will be celebrated for his efforts to promote science education. Generations of students have benefited from his engaging and accessible approach to complex scientific concepts.

Contributions to Arts, Fashion, and Activism

Other recipients include conservationist Jane Goodall, whose groundbreaking work with primates has advanced global conservation efforts. Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour, a driving force in the fashion industry, will be honored for her influence on culture and style.

American fashion designer Ralph Lauren, known for his iconic contributions to the industry, is another recipient. Lauren’s work has defined a timeless aesthetic in American fashion.

George Stevens Jr., the founder of the American Film Institute, will also be recognized. His work in film and his efforts to preserve cinematic history have left an indelible mark on the arts.

Tim Gill, an entrepreneur and LGBTQ+ activist, will receive the honor for his advocacy for equal rights and inclusion. David Rubenstein, co-founder of The Carlyle Group global investment firm, will also be acknowledged for his philanthropic contributions.

Building on Tradition

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is an annual tradition that highlights the achievements of individuals who have significantly impacted society. Last year, President Biden honored 19 individuals, including civil rights leader Medgar Evers, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Representative James Clyburn, and actor Michelle Yeoh.

This year’s honorees, ranging from politicians and philanthropists to athletes and entertainers, reflect a diverse array of achievements and contributions. As the White House noted, the awards underscore the values of prosperity, peace, and societal progress that the recipients embody.

With these accolades, the ceremony not only celebrates the accomplishments of the honorees but also underscores the enduring power of individual contributions to the collective good.

House Republicans Name Committee Leaders: No Women at the Helm for the First Time in Two Decades

For the first time in two decades, no women will lead a House committee after House Republicans announced their roster of committee chairs for the 119th Congress on Thursday. The selection, made by the House Republican Steering Committee, will result in all 17 standing committees being led exclusively by white men when the new Congress convenes on January 3.

This marks the first absence of women heading House committees since the 109th Congress, which lasted from 2005 to 2006. Additionally, no people of color were chosen to chair any of the committees.

“From securing our southern border, to unleashing American energy, to fighting to lower Bidenflation, and making our communities safe again, our Committee Chairs are ready to get to work fulfilling the American people’s mandate and enacting President Trump’s America-First agenda,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said while announcing the list of chairs. He added, “House Republicans are heading into the 119th Congress prepared to address the issues most important to hardworking Americans and fight for meaningful legislative wins.”

Scalise emphasized his support for the committee leaders, stating, “I look forward to working with these strong leaders and their Committees to advance President Trump’s priorities and deliver the American people the government they voted for in November.”

In the outgoing 118th Congress, three Republican women held committee leadership positions. Texas Rep. Kay Granger chaired the Appropriations Committee, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers led the Energy and Commerce Committee, and North Carolina Rep. Virginia Foxx chaired the Education and the Workforce Committee. However, Granger and McMorris Rodgers did not seek reelection in 2024, and while Foxx won an 11th term, she did not request a waiver to continue chairing her committee.

Foxx, 81, had previously been granted a waiver to lead the Education and the Workforce Committee during the 118th Congress, despite the House GOP’s six-year term limits for committee chairs. She had also served as chairwoman in the 115th Congress and ranking member during the 116th and 117th Congresses. With Foxx stepping down, Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg will take over as chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed concerns about the lack of female leadership earlier this week, stating, “Chairmen of committees are very important positions, but we really do engage all the membership. We have extraordinary women serving in Congress and in the Republican Conference. In fact, we elected some really strong women in the upcoming freshmen class.” Johnson added, “We value those voices. And everybody has an equal say at the table. These are thoughtful elections. We have an embarrassment of riches, frankly.”

Among the notable appointments, Florida Rep. Brian Mast, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, will lead the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Other prominent figures retaining their leadership roles include Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Kentucky Rep. James Comer as head of the Oversight Committee, and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith as chair of the influential Ways and Means Committee.

The absence of women in committee leadership drew sharp criticism from some within the Republican Party. Former Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock, a Republican, expressed her dismay on social media, stating, “Very fitting in the MAGA Era – No Women Need Apply.”

The Republican Party enters the new year holding a political trifecta, controlling the House, Senate, and White House. However, the narrow majority in the House, with 220 Republicans to 215 Democrats, leaves little room for internal dissent. This slim margin is further complicated by the anticipated departure of two House Republicans for positions in the Trump administration and the resignation of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz.

“After four years of suffering under the radical policies of the Biden-Harris Administration and a Democrat-controlled Senate, the American people made clear they are ready for a change,” Scalise said, underscoring the stakes of the GOP’s unified control. He added, “With Republicans taking control of the White House, Senate, and House, it is imperative we are in position to move President Trump’s agenda efficiently and thoughtfully so we can quickly restore our nation to greatness.”

This shift in leadership reflects the priorities of the GOP as it navigates its agenda under unified government control. While the absence of women and minority representation in committee leadership has sparked criticism, Republican leaders have emphasized their focus on addressing the policy issues they believe resonate most with their constituents. Whether these decisions will yield legislative success remains to be seen as the new Congress begins its work.

Trump Faces Sentencing Amid Historic Return to the Presidency

Before his return to the White House, President-elect Donald Trump will face sentencing in a New York court for his conviction in the “hush money” case. Justice Juan Merchan ruled on Friday that the sentencing will occur on January 10, just ten days before Trump’s inauguration, marking an unprecedented moment in U.S. history.

Trump’s conviction stems from a $130,000 payment made by his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was intended to secure Daniels’ silence about an alleged affair with Trump. The case and the subsequent conviction have placed Trump in the unique position of being the first former president in American history to be criminally convicted.

The decision concludes two months of speculation over the case following Trump’s narrow election victory on November 5. Despite the legal cloud, Trump’s supporters propelled him back into office, making him the first individual to win the presidency after being convicted of a crime.

Trump’s legal team filed a motion to dismiss the conviction, citing the demands of his new role as president-elect. They argued that his election victory necessitated the dismissal of the charges. However, Justice Merchan dismissed these claims in his Friday ruling, stating, “This court finds that neither the vacatur of the jury’s verdicts nor dismissal of the indictment are required by the Presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, or the Supremacy Clause.”

While sentencing options included incarceration, Merchan indicated that Trump would not serve time behind bars. He also suggested that Trump could attend the sentencing virtually. “It seems proper at this juncture to make known the court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration,” Merchan wrote, adding that prosecutors concurred with this approach.

Merchan’s ruling highlighted the constitutional limits of presidential immunity, noting that even Trump’s motion to dismiss acknowledged the lack of immunity for a president-elect. “Undoubtedly, the transition period between election and the taking of the presidential oath is one filled with enormous responsibility,” Merchan wrote. “Yet, even (the) defendant in his motion refers to presidential immunity as one relating specifically to a sitting president no fewer than 33 times.”

Despite the conviction’s potential for up to four years of jail time, Merchan’s ruling opened the door to alternatives like probation or fines. Trump’s legal team shifted their tone following the election, adopting what Merchan described as rhetoric “dangerously close to crossing the line.” He criticized their language, stating, “Counsel has resorted to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings.”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, proposed several unconventional measures to address the unprecedented situation. These included postponing proceedings until after Trump’s presidency or terminating the case with an acknowledgment of the unresolved verdict. Bragg’s team argued for creative solutions to balance the justice system’s integrity with the demands of Trump’s presidency.

Outside the courtroom, Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, condemned the case as a politically motivated attack. He labeled the proceedings a “witch hunt” and described Merchan as “deeply conflicted,” stating, “This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed.”

Trump’s trial, which began in March 2023 with his indictment, captivated the nation. The seven-week trial, coinciding with the Republican presidential primaries, saw a jury deliver a unanimous guilty verdict in May. Inside the courtroom, Trump often appeared disengaged, at times leaning back with his eyes closed or seemingly dozing off. Outside, he continued to campaign, surrounded by Republican allies, attorneys, and Secret Service agents.

The trial revealed intricate schemes involving Trump, Cohen, and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker. Prosecutors presented evidence of efforts to suppress damaging stories about Trump’s 2016 campaign through hush money payments and nondisclosure agreements. Pecker testified about three such arrangements, including the $130,000 payment to Daniels.

Cohen detailed how he was covertly reimbursed for the payment through falsified business records. Prosecutors argued that Trump authorized the scheme while in office, resulting in 34 falsified records disguised as payments for legal services. These records, in reality, covered Cohen’s reimbursements.

Witnesses recounted Trump’s relief that Daniels’ story remained hidden before the election. The jury deliberated for less than two days before delivering their verdict. When the foreperson read the 34 guilty counts, Trump, who had frequently stared at the jury during the trial, avoided eye contact.

Justice Merchan reprimanded Trump’s team for violating a gag order prohibiting public statements about jurors and witnesses, holding him in contempt ten times during the trial. Merchan also referenced concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s chief justice about political leaders undermining judicial institutions, warning that Trump’s attorneys’ arguments could have a chilling effect on the judiciary.

After the sentencing date was set, Trump’s reaction was defiant. Emerging from the courtroom, he grasped his son Eric’s hand, addressed the cameras, and declared his innocence. He described the proceedings as unjust and resumed his presidential campaign.

As January 10 approaches, Trump’s legal troubles and his return to the White House promise to make his sentencing a historic moment. The case not only underscores the challenges of balancing justice with political realities but also marks a pivotal chapter in America’s legal and political history.

Tesla Cybertruck Explosion in Las Vegas Leaves One Dead, Sparks Investigation into Terrorism Links

A tragic incident unfolded on Wednesday morning in Las Vegas when a Tesla Cybertruck exploded outside the Trump International Hotel, resulting in one death and injuries to seven others. Authorities, including the Las Vegas Police Department, are investigating the explosion as a potential act of terrorism.

The blast occurred near S. Sammy Davis Jr. Drive and Fashion Drive, with the fire reported at the hotel entrance. The Clark County Fire Department Deputy Chief, Thomas Touchstone, stated that emergency crews arrived at the scene within four minutes of receiving reports of a vehicle fire. Responders from Las Vegas police, fire departments, and rescue teams were quickly on-site, extinguishing the fire and attending to the injured.

Touchstone confirmed that seven individuals sustained minor injuries, two of whom were transported to a hospital for further treatment. Tragically, one person was found deceased inside the Cybertruck. Details about the deceased individual have not yet been disclosed.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Chief Kevin McMahill assured the public that the situation at the scene is now under control. He detailed that officers were dispatched to the area at 8:40 a.m. following reports of an explosion and fire. McMahill also highlighted a concerning connection to another incident in New Orleans earlier that day.

In New Orleans, a man driving a pickup truck, adorned with an ISIS flag on its trailer hitch, rammed into a crowd on Bourbon Street. The attack resulted in the deaths of 10 people and injuries to dozens more. McMahill acknowledged the timing and nature of these incidents, noting that police are taking extra precautions, such as searching for potential secondary devices.

Jeremy Schwartz, the FBI’s acting special agent in charge, confirmed the death resulting from the Las Vegas explosion but admitted that many questions remain unanswered.

Eric Trump, son of President-elect Donald Trump, addressed the incident on social media platform X. He wrote, “Earlier today, a reported electric vehicle fire occurred in the porte cochère of Trump Las Vegas. The safety and well-being of our guests and staff remain our top priority. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to the Las Vegas Fire Department and local law enforcement for their swift response and professionalism.”

Tesla CEO Elon Musk also took to X to comment on the event. Initially, Musk stated, “The whole Tesla senior team is investigating this matter right now. Will post more information as soon as we learn anything. We’ve never seen anything like this.” Later, Musk clarified the cause of the explosion, saying, “We have now confirmed that the explosion was caused by very large fireworks and/or a bomb carried in the bed of the rented Cybertruck and is unrelated to the vehicle itself. All vehicle telemetry was positive at the time of the explosion.”

Both the Cybertruck involved in the Las Vegas explosion and the truck used in the New Orleans attack were rented vehicles obtained through the peer-to-peer car rental platform, Turo. Fox News Digital has reached out to Turo for a statement but has not yet received a response.

Paul Mauro, a former New York City Police Department official and Fox News contributor, provided his perspective on the two events. “I cannot recall two terrorist events occurring on the same day that were not coordinated,” Mauro remarked. “While chances are that these two events are not related, it is something investigators have to consider.”

As authorities continue their investigations into the two tragic incidents, the connection, if any, between them remains a critical focus. The safety and security measures on Las Vegas Boulevard and other high-profile locations are being heightened to prevent further occurrences.

Chief Justice Roberts Stresses Judicial Independence Amid Political Tensions

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a strong message on Tuesday, emphasizing the necessity of preserving judicial independence in the United States. This declaration came just weeks before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, as Roberts released his annual report on the federal judiciary.

In his 15-page report, Roberts warned against politicizing the judiciary. “It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics,” he stated. Roberts highlighted the longstanding tradition of respecting court rulings, which has helped the nation avoid conflicts reminiscent of those in the 1950s and 1960s.

However, Roberts expressed concern about recent attitudes toward federal court decisions. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” he observed. While refraining from naming specific individuals like Trump or Biden, he emphasized, “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving.”

Roberts invoked the words of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who described an independent judiciary as “essential to the rule of law in any land,” but cautioned that it “is vulnerable to assault; it can be shattered if the society law exists to serve does not take care to assure its preservation.” Echoing this sentiment, Roberts urged Americans to value and protect the judicial system. “I urge all Americans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance,” he wrote.

Roberts also cited former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, emphasizing the necessity of collaboration among the three branches of government to uphold the rule of law. “Our political system and economic strength depend on the rule of law,” he asserted.

The chief justice’s remarks came in a politically charged atmosphere. A recent Supreme Court decision penned by Roberts provided immunity to Trump in a landmark case, and the court’s intervention to block efforts to disqualify Trump from the ballot were seen as significant victories for the former president. However, these rulings drew criticism from Democrats, including President Biden, who has advocated for judicial term limits and an enforceable ethics code. Such calls arose after controversies involving justices receiving undisclosed trips and gifts from wealthy benefactors.

Roberts also referenced incidents where public officials suggested bypassing court rulings. Last year, some Democrats and one Republican urged President Biden to disregard a Trump-appointed judge’s decision to revoke the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Biden chose not to circumvent the ruling, and the Supreme Court eventually granted a stay, allowing the drug to remain available.

Further, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled last year against Biden’s sweeping student loan forgiveness initiative, deeming it an unconstitutional use of executive power. Such decisions underscore the ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch.

Roberts has not shied away from addressing conflicts with political figures. In 2018, he criticized Trump for referring to a judge who blocked his asylum policy as an “Obama judge.” Similarly, in 2020, Roberts condemned Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer for making provocative remarks while the court deliberated a prominent abortion case.

In his report, Roberts also included historical context, recounting how King George III once stripped colonial judges of lifetime appointments, a move that was met with widespread disapproval. This anecdote served as a reminder of the importance of judicial independence, particularly as Trump prepares for a possible second term with a conservative agenda that may face legal challenges before a Supreme Court with three Trump-appointed justices.

Roberts stressed the importance of other branches of government enforcing judicial decisions, even when those rulings are unpopular. He cited the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which required federal enforcement to overcome resistance from southern governors who opposed desegregation.

Additionally, Roberts condemned attempts to pressure judges over their rulings. “Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” he wrote. While public criticism of court decisions is valid, Roberts cautioned that such statements could incite dangerous reactions. “Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic and are wholly unacceptable,” he added.

The chief justice highlighted the rising threats against federal judges, with U.S. Marshals Service data revealing a more than threefold increase in such threats over the past decade. Roberts referenced two tragic incidents: the murders of state court judges in Wisconsin and Maryland at their homes in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Roberts also addressed the role of disinformation in undermining judicial independence. He noted how social media amplifies distortions of court rulings, sometimes exploited by hostile foreign actors to deepen societal divisions.

“Judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy,” Roberts concluded, urging Americans to safeguard this principle amid mounting political and social pressures. His message underscored the judiciary’s critical role in maintaining the rule of law and the enduring strength of the nation’s democratic institutions.

Trump Endorses Speaker Mike Johnson, Highlighting GOP Tensions Over Leadership

President-elect Donald Trump has formally declared his unwavering support for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), just days before a critical House vote to elect a new Speaker. Trump expressed his endorsement on Monday through a post on Truth Social, calling Johnson a principled leader aligned with his vision.

“Speaker Mike Johnson is a good, hardworking, religious man. He will do the right thing, and we will continue to WIN. Mike has my Complete & Total Endorsement. MAGA!” Trump wrote.

Trump’s endorsement is seen as pivotal, given the delicate balance within the Republican majority in the House. Johnson faces the challenge of uniting a divided GOP caucus, as he can afford only minimal defections to secure his position as Speaker.

Tensions within the Republican Party have complicated Johnson’s leadership prospects. Discontent over his handling of issues like the end-of-year funding package, intended to prevent a government shutdown, has drawn criticism. Several conservative hardliners, including Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), have openly opposed Johnson or refused to confirm their support.

With the GOP holding a razor-thin majority, Johnson’s margin for error is slim. If all House members are present and voting, he can afford to lose no more than one Republican vote.

In response to Trump’s backing, Johnson expressed gratitude and reinforced his commitment to advancing the “America First” agenda. “Thank you, President Trump! I’m honored and humbled by your support, as always. Together, we will quickly deliver on your America First agenda and usher in the new golden age of America. The American people demand and deserve that we waste no time. Let’s get to work!” Johnson posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Trump’s endorsement accompanied a broader message in which he celebrated his electoral success and criticized the Democratic Party. He accused Democrats of running a “very expensive ‘sinking ship’” and weaponizing federal agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI against him.

“BUT IT DIDN’T WORK, IT WAS A DISASTER!!!” Trump wrote. “LETS NOT BLOW THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY WHICH WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN. The American people need IMMEDIATE relief from all of the destructive policies of the last Administration.”

The stakes of the Speaker vote have been closely tied to Trump’s influence within the GOP. Many lawmakers have indicated that Trump’s stance will significantly shape the outcome of the vote.

“It’s going to be more up to Trump than anybody else. He’s going to weigh in on it, I’m sure,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who, like several colleagues, has withheld commitment to supporting Johnson.

Trump’s endorsement is particularly noteworthy in light of prior disagreements between the two leaders. These tensions were most evident during negotiations over the year-end funding package. Trump had pushed for a debt ceiling increase to be included in a short-term funding bill, aiming to prevent Democrats from leveraging it later in 2025. However, Johnson was unable to fulfill this request due to resistance within the Republican ranks.

Ultimately, House Republicans reached a compromise, agreeing to raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion alongside $2.5 trillion in spending cuts. This agreement is part of a reconciliation bill designed to align with Trump’s legislative priorities while circumventing the need for Democratic support.

Despite this resolution, Trump has continued to advocate for immediate action on the debt ceiling. On Sunday night, he reiterated his stance on Truth Social, urging Republicans to address the issue before the end of President Joe Biden’s term.

“The Democrats must be forced to take a vote on this treacherous issue NOW, during the Biden Administration, and not in June,” Trump wrote. “They should be blamed for this potential disaster, not the Republicans!”

In the same post, Trump criticized former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for his handling of the debt ceiling, suggesting that past decisions have contributed to the current predicament. “The extension of the Debt Ceiling by a previous Speaker of the House, a good man and a friend of mine … will go down as one of the dumbest political decisions made in years,” Trump said.

The interplay between Trump’s directives and Johnson’s leadership will likely define the early days of the new Congress. Johnson’s ability to navigate GOP divisions and maintain Trump’s support could determine whether he can consolidate his position as Speaker and advance the Republican agenda.

As the House prepares for the Speaker vote on Friday, Johnson faces the dual challenge of securing internal GOP unity and managing the expectations set by Trump’s public endorsement.

Jimmy Carter Dies at 100: Tributes Pour in for Former President

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, passed away at the age of 100. The Carter Center confirmed that he was “surrounded by his family” at his home in Plains, Georgia, during his final moments on Sunday. His death marks the end of a remarkable life that included his time as a Navy lieutenant, peanut farmer, governor, and president.

The announcement prompted a wave of tributes from world leaders, including current and former U.S. presidents, who reflected on Carter’s enduring legacy. Preparations for a state funeral are underway to honor the only former U.S. president to reach the milestone age of 100.

Remembered by Leaders Across the Political Spectrum

President Joe Biden praised Carter’s life and character, calling him a “model of what it means to live a life of meaning and purpose.” In his statement on Sunday, Biden remarked, “He stands as a model of principle, faith, and humility. His life was dedicated to others.” Biden also expressed deep personal sorrow, describing Carter as a “dear friend.”

Vice President Kamala Harris joined the chorus of condolences, emphasizing Carter’s moral integrity and faith. “Carter was guided by a deep and abiding faith — in God, in America, and in humanity,” Harris said. She highlighted his ability to remind the nation and the world of “the strength in decency and compassion.”

Donald Trump, the president-elect, also paid his respects. While noting that he “strongly disagreed with [Carter] philosophically and politically,” Trump described him with “highest respect” and acknowledged Americans’ collective “debt of gratitude.”

State Funeral Plans

A series of public observances will take place to commemorate Carter’s legacy, beginning in Atlanta and Washington, D.C. A private interment will follow in Plains, Georgia, the small town where Carter was born and spent much of his life. Final arrangements are still being planned, and the ceremonies will be conducted by the Department of Defense’s Joint Task Force – National Capital Region.

A Life of Service and Principles

Before entering politics, Carter served as a U.S. Navy lieutenant and managed his family’s peanut farm in Georgia. His career in public service began when he was elected as Georgia’s governor, eventually leading to his presidency from 1977 to 1981.

Carter’s time in the White House was marked by significant accomplishments and challenges, including brokering the Camp David Accords, which led to a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Although his presidency was limited to one term, Carter remained an influential figure on the global stage through his humanitarian and advocacy work.

Tributes from Past Presidents and World Leaders

Other living former U.S. presidents also expressed their sorrow over Carter’s death. Barack Obama described him as “a beacon of moral clarity,” George W. Bush referred to him as a “great American,” and Bill Clinton honored his lifelong dedication to public service.

Condolences also poured in from leaders across the globe. Heads of state and lawmakers praised Carter’s unwavering commitment to peace, human rights, and humanitarian causes, reflecting the deep respect he garnered internationally.

Rosalynn Carter’s Legacy

Carter’s passing comes just a month after the death of his wife, Rosalynn Carter, who died in November 2023 at the age of 96. The couple had been married for over 75 years, making them the longest-married presidential couple in U.S. history. Rosalynn was widely recognized for her advocacy for mental health and humanitarian efforts, often working alongside her husband in their shared pursuits.

Honoring Carter’s Legacy

Jimmy Carter’s century-long life stands as a testament to a life well-lived in service to others. As President Biden aptly noted, he represented “faith and humility,” qualities that will continue to inspire generations.

The nation and the world now prepare to bid farewell to a leader whose legacy transcends politics, leaving behind a lasting imprint on history.

Trump’s Historic Comeback: A Journey of Struggles, Achievements, and American Resilience

Vinod George Abraham, CISA, CPA M.S (Tax)

In 2024, former President Donald Trump achieved a remarkable political victory, one that could reshape the future of America. After facing unprecedented challenges, including unfair treatment by political elites and the justice system, Trump made a historic comeback to win the popular vote, becoming the second president in U.S. history to regain the presidency after a loss. The first was Grover Cleveland, who defeated Benjamin Harrison in 1892, a resounding victory after losing his reelection bid four years prior. Trump, much like Cleveland, overcame immense adversity to return to the White House, earning the people’s vote in what many called a “golden age” for America.

Trump’s victory was not just a win for him, but a win for the American people, especially those tired of the Washington elite and the political establishment. The Democrats, backed by the powerful left-wing media, have long criticized Trump, claiming he was unfit for office. Despite this, he continued to fight for the people, and his resilience is evident in the battles he faced from the justice system.

The Federal Election Interference Case

One of the most significant legal challenges Trump faced was the Federal Election Interference Case, a politically motivated charge pushed by the left-wing establishment and the Justice Department. The case accused Trump and his allies of attempting to interfere with the election process, despite the overwhelming evidence showing his win was fair and square. For fair-minded people, this was a case built on a flimsy theory, and the injustice of the situation could not have been clearer. Trump fought back, and before the case even reached the Supreme Court, the American people voiced their support through their votes, ultimately proving the charges were baseless.

The Georgia Election Interference Case

Another case that gained significant attention was the Georgia Election Interference Case, which alleged that Trump had attempted to pressure state officials to change the outcome of the election. However, once again, there was no real evidence of wrongdoing. The case was nothing more than a political attack aimed at damaging Trump’s credibility. His supporters stood firm, recognizing the case for what it truly was—an attempt by Democrats to prevent his return to power.

The Classified Documents Case

The Classified Documents Case, in which Trump was accused of mishandling classified information, also became a focal point for his political opponents. The charges seemed exaggerated and politically motivated, as many saw parallels with other public officials who had mishandled sensitive materials without facing similar scrutiny. For the fair-minded, this case was another example of a biased justice system targeting Trump while ignoring the wrongdoings of others in power.

The Hush Money Case

Perhaps one of the most sensationalized cases was the Hush Money Case, which centered around alleged payments to silence individuals during the 2016 election. Once again, the charges were politically driven, aimed at tarnishing Trump’s reputation. Fair-minded individuals recognized that these charges were an attempt to distract from the real issues facing the nation. The case ultimately failed to hold any significant weight against Trump’s legacy and his enduring popularity.

The Supreme Court Victory

All of these cases were built upon novel legal theories, but ultimately, Trump triumphed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, affirming that the charges against him were based on flimsy arguments and political motivations. It was a historic win for the American legal system, which rejected the attempts to undermine a democratically elected leader. Trump’s victory was a testament to the strength of the people’s voice and the resilience of the American political system.

Trump’s Leadership: A New Era for America

Trump’s leadership has been defined by his relentless fight for the American people. His “America First” policies focused on securing the borders, reducing illegal immigration, and making the U.S. energy independent. His first tax cut, which made permanent reforms to the tax code, was a win for businesses and working-class Americans. Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which was highly successful during his first term, was a cornerstone of his immigration agenda, one that he promised to reinstate on day one of his second term.

Throughout his campaign, Trump emphasized a bold vision for America’s future. He promised to defeat inflation, lower energy costs, and restore the American dream. His proposed tariffs on foreign imports, particularly from China, were designed to protect American workers and bring manufacturing back to the U.S. By taking such a hard stance, Trump vowed to level the playing field for American businesses and consumers.

Trump’s work ethic, even at 78 years old, has been nothing short of inspiring. He tirelessly campaigned across the nation, speaking to voters in every state, whether red or blue. His message was clear: he was for the people, and he would fight for their interests no matter the obstacles.

A Golden Age for America

The promise of a “Golden Age” of America is now within reach, as Trump sets his sights on his second term in office. With the help of influential figures like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have joined forces to cut government waste, Trump is prepared to tackle the challenges that lie ahead. His proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) aims to reduce unnecessary spending and streamline federal operations. Trump’s ability to build alliances with former adversaries and unite the country under his vision for a prosperous America demonstrates his unparalleled political acumen.

As President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris continue to peddle optimism in the face of a faltering economy, Trump remains the only major candidate willing to confront the nation’s economic challenges head-on. His bold promises, such as revitalizing manufacturing, tackling inflation, and reducing government waste, have struck a chord with Americans who are ready for change.

Conclusion

Trump’s historic comeback is not just a personal victory but a triumph for the American people. His leadership has shown that when the people speak, nothing can stand in their way. With his unmatched work ethic, bold vision for America’s future, and unwavering commitment to putting the interests of the nation first, Trump has proven that he is a force to be reckoned with. His second term promises to bring about the Golden Age of America—a time of unparalleled prosperity, security, and national pride.

Why the US Government Faces Frequent Shutdowns

The United States government has experienced shutdowns ten times over the past four decades, a phenomenon rare in other nations, even during wars or constitutional crises. These shutdowns have become a uniquely American occurrence, tied to the country’s political structure and legislative gridlock.

For most nations, a government shutdown signals extreme turmoil—such as a revolution, invasion, or disaster. In the US, however, it has evolved into a bargaining tactic for political leaders, occurring with notable regularity. But why does this happen in the US when it is virtually unheard of elsewhere?

At the heart of the issue lies America’s federal system, which allows different political parties to control different branches of government. This system, crafted by the nation’s founders, was designed to foster compromise and thoughtful deliberation. Unfortunately, in recent decades, it has often achieved the opposite, fueling division and dysfunction.

This situation traces back to a 1980 decision under President Jimmy Carter’s administration. The attorney general at the time issued a strict interpretation of the 1884 Anti-Deficiency Act, a 19th-century law that prohibits the government from committing to expenditures without congressional approval. Historically, the government permitted essential spending to continue during budget gaps. However, the 1980 ruling enforced a stricter policy: no approved budget, no spending.

This interpretation sets the US apart from other non-parliamentary democracies, such as Brazil. In Brazil, a strong executive branch ensures that government operations continue during a budget impasse, avoiding the shutdown scenarios seen in the US.

The first US government shutdown occurred in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan vetoed a funding bill, resulting in a brief halt in services. Since then, at least ten shutdowns have taken place, ranging from less than a day to over a month. The most prolonged shutdown occurred from December 21, 2018, to January 25, 2019.

What Happens During a Shutdown?

During a shutdown, certain critical services, such as Social Security and military operations, continue. However, hundreds of thousands of federal employees are left unpaid. The White House estimated that during the 2018-2019 shutdown, the US economy lost 0.1 percentage points in GDP growth for each week that salaries went unpaid.

In stark contrast, other countries have mechanisms that prevent such shutdowns. Most European democracies operate under parliamentary systems, ensuring that the executive and legislative branches are controlled by the same party or coalition. If a parliament rejects a budget proposed by the government, it typically triggers new elections rather than halting services like national parks, tax refunds, or food assistance programs.

Canada offers an example of this system in action. In 2011, opposition parties in Canada’s parliament rejected the budget proposed by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, which held a minority of seats. The House of Commons subsequently passed a motion of no confidence, forcing an election. Despite the political crisis, government services continued without interruption.

Even Belgium, which went without an elected government for a record 589 days between 2010 and 2011, maintained essential public services, including its train system.

Similarly, Ireland operated smoothly from 2016 to 2020 under a minority government using a confidence-and-supply arrangement. This setup involves opposition parties agreeing to support critical spending bills and votes of confidence, ensuring stability despite political disagreements.

A Unique Challenge in the US

In the US, such cooperation has grown increasingly rare. Political parties are often willing to use the functioning of government as leverage to extract concessions from their opponents. The resulting gridlock has made shutdowns a recurring issue.

Government funding has been temporarily extended multiple times since last autumn, following political turbulence that included the ousting of Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his replacement by current Speaker Mike Johnson. These stopgap measures were passed through bipartisan efforts, temporarily avoiding shutdowns.

However, with President-elect Donald Trump and tech mogul Elon Musk opposing a short-term funding bill that would extend government operations through March 14, the current budget is set to expire at 12:01 a.m. local time on Saturday. This raises the likelihood of an eleventh government shutdown.

As political divisions deepen, the US faces recurring brinkmanship over funding, with potentially significant consequences for government workers and the broader economy.

Immigration Fuels U.S. Population Growth to 23-Year High in 2024

The U.S. population grew at its fastest pace in 23 years during 2024, surpassing 340 million residents, the U.S. Census Bureau reported on Thursday. With a growth rate of 1%, this year marked a significant rise compared to the record low of 0.2% recorded in 2021, when pandemic-related travel restrictions curbed immigration.

Immigration played a pivotal role in this demographic surge, adding nearly 2.8 million people to the population. A new method of counting individuals admitted for humanitarian reasons contributed to this increase. Net international migration accounted for 84% of the 3.3 million-person population rise between 2023 and 2024.

Births continued to outnumber deaths, with 519,000 more births than deaths recorded between 2023 and 2024. This figure represented an improvement from the historic low of 146,000 in 2021 but remained below the peaks observed in previous decades.

Immigration also significantly impacted population trends in individual states. In 16 states, population growth driven by immigration offset losses caused by residents moving to other states or deaths surpassing births. William Frey, a demographer at The Brookings Institution, emphasized this in an email, stating, “While some of the surge may be attributed to border crossings of asylees and humanitarian migrants in an unusual year, these numbers also show how immigration can be an important contributor to population gains in a large swath of the nation that would otherwise be experiencing slow growth or declines.”

The South continued its trend as the fastest-growing region in the United States, adding 1.8 million new residents in 2024—more than the combined total of all other regions. Texas led the nation with 562,941 new residents, followed by Florida, which gained 467,347 residents. The District of Columbia recorded the highest growth rate at 2.2%.

While most states experienced growth, three—Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia—saw slight population declines, losing between 127 and 516 residents.

The movement of residents from coastal urban states like California and New York to Sunbelt states such as Florida and Texas, a trend accelerated during the pandemic, showed signs of slowing in 2024, according to Frey. However, the broader demographic shift of population concentration moving south has continued, representing a dramatic change in the settlement patterns of the United States. Alex Zakrewsky, an urban planner in New Jersey, described this phenomenon as “a demographic shock to the evolving settlement pattern of the United States.”

A significant portion of international migration figures came from individuals entering the U.S. through humanitarian parole, a policy granting temporary entry to those unable to use standard immigration channels. The Migration Policy Institute noted that over 5.8 million individuals had been admitted under various humanitarian policies between 2021 and 2024.

Accurately estimating the number of new immigrants remains one of the most challenging aspects of the Census Bureau’s population calculations. While this year’s revised methodology was unrelated to political shifts, it comes just a month before President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Trump has pledged to carry out mass deportations of undocumented individuals in the U.S.

Discrepancies in immigration figures have been notable in recent years. For instance, the Census Bureau estimated 1.1 million immigrants entered the U.S. in 2023, compared to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of 3.3 million. With the updated methodology, the Census Bureau recalculated 2023 immigration figures at nearly 2.3 million, adding an extra 1.1 million to previous estimates.

The previous undercounting stemmed from the bureau’s reliance on surveys of households with established addresses, which often excluded immigrants admitted for humanitarian reasons. Jennifer Van Hook, a demographer at Penn State who contributed to the Census Bureau’s methodological changes, explained, “What has happened over time is that immigration has changed. You have numbers of people coming in who are claiming asylum and being processed at the U.S.-Mexico border from across the globe.”

The Census Bureau’s annual population estimates provide critical data between the decennial census counts. These figures not only track population trends across the U.S., its states, counties, and metro areas but also serve as the basis for distributing trillions of dollars in federal funding.

Congress Faces Urgent Deadline to Avert Partial Government Shutdown Amidst Debt Ceiling Debate

The U.S. Congress has a mere two days to avoid a partial government shutdown, following President-elect Donald Trump’s rejection of a bipartisan deal on Wednesday. Trump has demanded lawmakers not only pass a funding extension but also address the nation’s debt ceiling before he assumes office next month.

Trump urged his Republican colleagues to oppose a stopgap bill that would extend government funding past the deadline of midnight on Friday. Without congressional action, a partial shutdown is set to commence on Saturday, affecting key services such as air travel and law enforcement during the crucial days leading up to Christmas.

The proposed bipartisan agreement, negotiated on Tuesday, aimed to maintain funding through March 14. However, Trump warned Republicans of political repercussions if they supported the deal. “Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried,” Trump stated on his Truth Social platform, referencing the possibility of intra-party challenges during primary elections.

If a shutdown occurs, it will be the first since the 2018-2019 closure, which also took place during Trump’s presidency.

Trump has called for Congress to pass legislation addressing multiple issues, including raising the government’s borrowing limit, a contentious matter, and enacting temporary funding measures. Additionally, he insisted on removing certain provisions in the current deal supported by Democrats, whose cooperation is essential for the bill’s passage.

Trump’s ally, Elon Musk, further complicated negotiations by urging Congress to reject the bill. Musk, who has been enlisted by Trump to scrutinize federal spending, argued that lawmakers supporting the measure should face electoral consequences.

Late-Night Negotiations Continue

Top Republican leaders, including Vice President-elect JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson, met late Wednesday to discuss the looming crisis. Following the meeting, Johnson described the discussions as a “productive conversation” but declined to provide specifics.

House Republican leader Steve Scalise was noncommittal when asked whether raising the debt ceiling would be part of the final agreement, saying, “We’re not there yet.” Similarly, House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole expressed uncertainty, stating, “I’m not confident of anything.”

Unclear Path Forward

The path to resolving the crisis remains uncertain. Any spending bill will require bipartisan support to pass through the House, where Republicans hold a slim 219-211 majority, and the Senate, where Democrats maintain a narrow edge.

President Joe Biden’s White House, which remains in power until Trump’s inauguration on January 20, criticized Republican tactics, stating that “Republicans need to stop playing politics” and warning that a shutdown would be detrimental to the country.

The current stopgap measure seeks to fund federal agencies at existing levels while allocating $100 billion for disaster relief and $10 billion for farm aid. It also includes unrelated items such as a pay raise for lawmakers and new rules targeting hidden hotel fees.

Trump has opposed these additional provisions, arguing that the bill should focus solely on temporary funding, disaster relief, and raising the debt ceiling. He emphasized the urgency of addressing the debt ceiling now to avoid a fiscal showdown next year.

The stopgap bill has become necessary because Congress has failed to approve standard spending legislation for the fiscal year, which began on October 1. Essential programs like Social Security are unaffected, as they operate independently of annual appropriations.

Mounting Debt and Economic Risks

For more than two decades, the U.S. government has spent beyond its revenues, driven by Democratic expansions of healthcare programs and Republican tax cuts. The national debt now stands at $36 trillion, necessitating an eventual increase in the debt ceiling.

Lawmakers face a choice: raise the borrowing limit now or when the government reaches its borrowing capacity next year. Failure to act could lead to severe economic repercussions. As discussions drag on, the stakes for Congress, the incoming administration, and the nation remain high.

Trump Names Loyal Allies to Key Positions in His Administration

President-elect Donald Trump is selecting a group of loyal allies for key federal government roles after their electoral defeats in recent years, often linked to their support for Trump’s controversial political claims. These selections highlight Trump’s enduring focus on loyalty and his tendency to reward those who have steadfastly supported him, even if their political races ended in defeat.

Among the notable picks are two former Georgia senators who lost their 2020 Senate races after promoting Trump’s unfounded claims of a stolen election. David Perdue, who also lost the 2022 gubernatorial primary while aligning himself with Trump’s election denial narrative, is being considered for the position of ambassador to China. Kelly Loeffler, who also lost her Senate seat in 2020, has been chosen to head the Small Business Administration.

Former football player Herschel Walker, whom Trump backed for the Georgia Senate seat in 2022, was appointed late Tuesday as ambassador to the Bahamas. Although Walker lost his Senate bid, he remains a strong Trump supporter.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, the TV personality and doctor who ran for Senate in Pennsylvania in 2022 with Trump’s endorsement, has been selected to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Similarly, Kari Lake, who lost races for governor in Arizona in 2022 and for Senate in 2024, has been chosen to run Voice of America, a U.S.-funded international news broadcaster.

Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer from Oregon, who lost re-election after being tied to Trump by her Democratic opponent, was selected for the position of labor secretary. Former Georgia congressman Doug Collins, a pro-Trump figure who lost a 2020 primary to Loeffler, is set to head the Department of Veterans Affairs. Former New York congressman Lee Zeldin, who lost his 2022 gubernatorial race, was picked to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

For Trump, the central consideration behind these picks is loyalty. He has long placed great value on those who remain loyal to him, a trait that is evident in his choices for his second administration. Trump’s inner circle is unsurprised by these appointments. “He values loyalty, hard stop. At times, beyond all else. We were not surprised by anyone you mentioned was picked,” said a Trump ally familiar with the transition process. “They are not only qualified for the positions they are nominated for, but have shown great loyalty to President Trump. He’s trying to change Washington and wants people who he knows he can trust.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell of California critiqued Trump’s selections, arguing that the president-elect was rewarding loyalists and sending a message to Republicans: “Don’t cross me if you’re in Congress. Because he remembers.” However, Swalwell questioned whether Trump’s picks were the most qualified. “I don’t know why you’d want a Cabinet full of electoral losers,” he said in an interview.

Rep. Hillary Scholten from Michigan echoed concerns about competence, emphasizing that it’s essential to prioritize the most qualified individuals for these critical roles. “I cannot begin to get in the mind of Trump, but it certainly seems from the outside that this is a way to keep people who were close to him, who took a stand for him, within the inner circle,” Scholten said. “I’m glad that we have a vetting process in the Senate, because these are positions of incredible trust, and we need to make sure that we’re not only rewarding political loyalty here… We need the most competent person for the job in these roles.”

Senator John Cornyn of Texas defended Trump’s choices, expressing confidence in the talents of the nominees. “I’m glad he’s taking advantage of some of the talent that’s out there,” Cornyn said. “And so I’m encouraged by that.”

Trump’s strategy of elevating loyalists has, however, meant that those who challenged him have been sidelined. Notably, figures like Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador, and Mike Pompeo, Trump’s former secretary of state, have been excluded. Haley, who ran against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, and Pompeo, who is seen as disloyal by some in the MAGA movement, were both bypassed in favor of those who remained faithful to Trump’s brand of politics.

“I will not be inviting former Ambassador Nikki Haley, or former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, to join the Trump Administration, which is currently in formation,” Trump declared on his social media platform following the election.

For Trump’s loyalists, their dedication to his cause has helped them secure prominent positions. Kari Lake, for instance, has been a vocal promoter of Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election, and she has remained a frequent presence at Mar-a-Lago during the 2024 election period. Her continued allegiance to Trump, however, has at times led to friction with some of his advisers. “At the end of the day, those are not the sort of things that will end a relationship with Trump,” said a Trump ally in response to reports that Trump encouraged Lake to focus more on campaigning for her Senate race instead of staying at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s approach to political loyalty has also been a means for former political foes to regain favor with him. One such example is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who after a bitter primary contest with Trump in 2016, recalibrated to become one of Trump’s staunchest allies. This shift in allegiance has earned him a key position in Trump’s second administration. “He will be a strong advocate for our nation, a true friend to our allies, and a fearless warrior who will never back down to our adversaries,” Trump said in announcing Rubio as his pick for secretary of state in November.

Lee Zeldin, who came within seven points of winning the New York governor’s race in 2022, stands out among the group of underperforming Republican nominees. His relatively strong performance in a heavily Democratic state has earned him a spot in Trump’s administration, signaling that political success, even if not entirely victorious, can still earn favor in Trump’s eyes.

Some of Trump’s appointments also appear to be more transactional in nature, such as his selection of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, a member of the prominent Democratic family who ran in the Democratic 2024 primary before endorsing Trump, is another example of Trump’s pragmatic approach.

“There is very little that someone can do to Trump, even if they were once political enemies, that can’t be fixed by showing that you are committed to his message and his movement,” said a Trump ally. “I think he has every right to expect that sort of loyalty for those around him.”

In sum, Trump’s cabinet selections reveal a clear pattern of prioritizing loyalty over other factors, including electoral success or political competence. His picks not only reinforce his influence within the Republican Party but also send a message that loyalty is the most crucial element in his approach to governance. As his second term in office begins to take shape, it remains to be seen whether these picks will prove effective in their respective roles, or whether they will further alienate critics who argue that competence should come first.

Trump Vows to Eliminate Daylight Saving Time: Winners and Losers of the Shift

Like many Americans, Donald Trump has expressed his dislike for the practice of switching clocks forward in March and back in November for daylight saving time. Last Friday, the former president pledged to put an end to this longstanding practice.

In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump wrote, “The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t! Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.”

Initially introduced during both World Wars as a measure to save energy, daylight saving time has become a subject of contention in recent years. While it promises an extra hour of evening sunlight, studies have raised questions about whether the benefits outweigh the disruptions. Changing the clocks is a source of frustration for many, and earlier this month, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, who are part of Trump’s semi-official Department of Government Efficiency, also criticized the practice.

It remains unclear whether Trump supports making daylight saving time permanent—leading to longer afternoons—or reverting to standard time year-round, which would ensure brighter mornings. Trump’s team declined to comment on the matter. In 2022, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, whom Trump has nominated to lead the State Department, co-sponsored the Sunshine Protection Act. This bipartisan bill, now stalled, proposed making daylight saving time permanent. On the other hand, most health experts advocate for staying on standard time due to its alignment with natural body rhythms.

Ending clock changes would have far-reaching implications, with economic consequences for several sectors. If the proposal to remain on permanent daylight saving time gains traction, there will be distinct winners and losers.

Winners

Tourism

One of the biggest beneficiaries of permanent daylight saving time would be the tourism industry. Longer afternoon and evening daylight hours encourage more visitors to outdoor attractions and landmarks. Kurt Janson, policy director of the U.K.’s Tourism Alliance, estimated in 2011 that Britain’s tourism sector could gain an additional £3.5 billion (around $5.6 billion at the time) annually if daylight saving time were made permanent. “In a nutshell, it would extend the spring and fall shoulder seasons for the tourism industry,” Janson told National Geographic.

Retail

Retailers would also stand to gain from permanent daylight saving time. Extended daylight hours encourage shoppers to spend more, particularly during the evening. Two years ago, an industry representative told a House committee that daylight saving time contributed to increased consumer spending. Similarly, a 2016 JPMorgan Chase Institute study revealed that consumer spending dropped by 2.2% to 4.9% in various cities following the return to standard time.

The Stock Market

Interestingly, the stock market also seems to fare better during daylight saving time. Between 2007 and 2022, the S&P 500 recorded an average gain of 7.5% during daylight saving months, compared to just 2% during the rest of the year, according to Bespoke Investment Group. While correlation does not imply causation, it appears that Wall Street traders—like many Americans—dislike losing an hour of sleep in March. A study conducted by researchers from several business schools, including Kentucky and Emory, found that participants in capital markets were slower to react to earnings news during the week after clocks “spring forward.”

Losers

Your Health

Health experts overwhelmingly favor standard time over daylight saving time, citing its better alignment with the body’s circadian rhythm. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine both argue that standard time is healthier. Research published in the British Medical Journal highlights a range of health risks linked to daylight saving time, including increased rates of heart attacks, strokes, and other medical conditions.

A recent analysis by Chmura Economics & Analytics estimated the annual economic cost of daylight saving time at $672 million. This figure includes $375 million attributed to higher rates of heart attacks, $252 million linked to strokes, $18 million from workplace injuries, and $27 million due to a rise in traffic accidents.

Morning Commuters

Making daylight saving time permanent has historical precedent—and mixed results. In December 1973, President Nixon signed a law to implement permanent daylight saving time during the oil crisis. However, the change quickly became unpopular during the dark winter months. Americans disliked commuting and sending children to school before sunrise, and the problem gained national attention when incidents of schoolchildren being hit by vehicles were reported. In Florida alone, eight children died, prompting then-Governor Reubin Askew to urge Congress to reverse the measure.

By October 1974, President Gerald Ford signed legislation to reinstate standard time for four months each year. If daylight saving time were made permanent again, similar objections could arise from parents, commuters, and others, particularly in regions located on the western edges of time zones where sunrise would be significantly delayed.

As Trump continues to advocate for eliminating daylight saving time, the debate highlights the complexities and trade-offs involved in changing how the nation observes time. Whether his pledge materializes into a legislative proposal or remains a talking point, the potential winners and losers are clear.

New York Judge Upholds Trump’s Conviction in Hush Money Case Despite Claims of Presidential Immunity

A New York judge upheld the conviction of President-elect Donald Trump on felony charges, ruling that the verdict from a jury in the hush money case remains valid even under the Supreme Court’s new test for presidential immunity. This ruling came shortly after Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, in which voters chose to return him to the White House despite his ongoing legal challenges.

The decision, made by Judge Juan Merchan, addresses a key aspect of Trump’s legal battle: whether the president-elect could use his status to dismiss the case entirely. At the heart of the issue was whether certain evidence, presented by New York prosecutors during Trump’s seven-week trial, was protected under the Supreme Court’s doctrine of presidential immunity. Trump’s legal team argued that evidence such as testimony from White House aides, social media posts sent during his presidency, and his government ethics form should have been shielded from scrutiny.

Judge Merchan, however, ruled that Trump’s immunity objections had been improperly preserved, as some of the arguments had not been raised earlier in the case. Moreover, he concluded that none of the evidence in question fell under the protection of presidential immunity. In his ruling, Merchan explained, “The evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections; and as to the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds in the alternative, that when considered on the merits, they too are denied because they relate entirely to unofficial conduct.”

This ruling comes at a time when the Supreme Court has recently clarified the scope of presidential immunity. The Court held that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to core constitutional powers. However, it also made clear that while unofficial conduct can be prosecuted, juries are not allowed to probe the motivations behind presidential decisions. The high court’s decision sets a precedent that Trump’s defense could not use to block evidence in this case.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg strongly opposed Trump’s claims, urging Judge Merchan to dismiss the arguments about immunity. Bragg contended that no evidence presented to the jury was protected by presidential immunity and emphasized that, even if immunity applied, it would not diminish the weight of “other overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.” Merchan agreed with this assessment, stating that even if the immunity argument held, he would still find that the evidence used against Trump—particularly relating to falsifying business records—did not infringe upon the authority of the Executive Branch. He concluded that such acts were personal in nature, and were not related to presidential duties, which would justify their inclusion in the case.

Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, all related to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. The payment was intended to conceal an affair, which Trump has consistently denied. Prosecutors argued that the scheme was a deliberate attempt to unlawfully influence the outcome of the election. This case is significant because it represents the first-ever criminal prosecution of a former U.S. president and is the only one to have reached trial.

Despite the jury’s conviction, Trump has continued to argue that his victory in the 2024 presidential election should lead to the dismissal of the verdict and the case itself. Bragg has opposed these claims, suggesting alternative approaches such as freezing the proceedings during Trump’s time in office. As of now, Judge Merchan has not yet made a ruling on this matter.

Trump’s spokesperson, Steven Cheung, expressed frustration with the decision, accusing Judge Merchan of violating Supreme Court rulings on immunity. “Today’s decision by deeply conflicted, acting Justice Merchan in the Manhattan DA Witch Hunt is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence,” Cheung said in a statement. In contrast, Bragg’s office declined to comment on the judge’s ruling.

In another development, Judge Merchan also revealed that Trump had submitted a letter on December 3, alleging juror misconduct. While Merchan offered few details, he indicated that the matter would be made public with certain redactions.

Trump’s legal situation has become more complicated since his return to the presidential race. While the Manhattan hush money case progresses, other criminal proceedings have taken more favorable turns for the president-elect. Special Counsel Jack Smith dropped all charges against Trump in relation to his federal election subversion and classified documents cases. Meanwhile, the Georgia criminal case, concerning alleged election interference, has been temporarily paused as an appeals court reviews a pretrial defense challenge. Trump’s legal team has also pushed for the dismissal of this case.

Despite these legal challenges, Trump’s supporters remain confident in his ability to overcome the hurdles. The ongoing legal drama surrounding him has yet to definitively affect his ability to govern or his political future. However, his legal battles will likely continue to be a central issue as he embarks on his second term in office.

Confusion Over Mysterious Drone Sightings Raises Concerns and Calls for Action

In recent weeks, reports of mysterious flying objects have sparked concern and confusion across several states, with calls for military intervention. These objects, potentially drones, have been spotted over residential areas, restricted sites, and critical infrastructure, prompting increased scrutiny from federal agencies. Despite public concern, officials have stressed that there is no evidence suggesting that these sightings pose a serious security threat.

White House National Security spokesperson John Kirby reassured the public on Monday, stating that there have been no indications of any national security or public safety risks associated with these sightings. “We assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircrafts, helicopters, and even stars that were mistakenly reported as drones,” Kirby explained. He added that the FBI is reviewing around 100 tips related to the sightings, but none have raised alarms about malicious intent.

The U.S. government is taking steps to address the situation, including deploying advanced drone detection and tracking systems to two military facilities in New Jersey. The systems are being moved to Picatinny Arsenal, a U.S. military research facility in northern New Jersey, and Naval Weapons Station Earle, located in central New Jersey. These facilities have been the site of several reported drone sightings, which led to temporary flight restrictions in the area. “Several instances of unidentified drones entering the airspace” were noted above Naval Weapons Station Earle, though no direct threats were identified.

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was briefed by the FBI on the investigation into the drone sightings, particularly around the Naval Weapons Station Earle. He expressed the state’s readiness to support federal authorities in resolving the matter. The sightings have disrupted some local air traffic, including a temporary closure of Stewart International Airport in New York due to drone activity. At the same time, airspace above Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio was restricted because of similar concerns. Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder emphasized that the presence of drones is not uncommon, given that thousands of drones are flown across the U.S. daily. “It’s not that unusual to see drones in the sky, nor is it an indication of malicious activity or any public safety threat,” Ryder stated.

Despite these reassurances, local politicians continue to demand further investigation into the drone sightings. In Morris County, New Jersey, officials have called on the federal government to mobilize all available resources to address the unauthorized drone activity. Former President Donald Trump also weighed in on the situation during a news conference, raising questions about the government’s knowledge of the drone activities. “The government knows what is happening. Look, our military knows where they took off from,” Trump said. “If it’s a garage, they can go right into that garage. They know where it came from and where it went, and for some reason they don’t want to comment.”

Kirby responded to Trump’s remarks, emphasizing the administration’s commitment to transparency, but also cautioned against speculation. “What we’re not going to do is speculate, and we’re not going to hypothesize – we’re not going to, we’re not going to provide content that we can’t be sure is accurate,” Kirby remarked.

In an effort to manage public safety, the FBI and New Jersey State Police issued a joint statement urging the public not to shoot at suspected drones, warning that such actions could result in deadly consequences if manned aircraft are mistakenly targeted. The statement highlighted instances where pilots of manned aircraft had been struck in the eyes by lasers, likely due to misidentification of drones.

Drone ownership in the U.S. is widespread, with around 792,000 drones registered with the FAA, used for a variety of purposes such as photography, agriculture, and law enforcement. However, there remains significant uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the recent sightings. Some experts, including FBI supervisory special agent Tom Adams, believe that many sightings could be cases of mistaken identity, with people confusing aircraft or even stars with drones. “I can tell you from my firsthand experience…it was fairly common for planets, crewed aircraft and even low Earth orbit satellites to be misidentified as drones at night,” Adams explained.

The sightings have occurred across multiple states, including New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio. In Morris County, New Jersey, residents have frequently reported seeing drones, often in clusters. Democratic Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey shared a video of what appeared to be a cluster of drones flying over the Round Valley Reservoir but later acknowledged that most of the objects were likely planes. Local officials have been briefed by federal agencies, with some reports indicating that the drones appear to fly in a coordinated pattern and can remain airborne for extended periods.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul directed the state’s Intelligence Center to investigate the sightings, and announced that new drone detection systems would be deployed in the state. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also called for advanced detection technologies to be used to track drones. New York State Police reported that they were investigating numerous drone sightings, although no public safety threat has been identified.

Drone sightings have also been reported in other states, with Connecticut deploying a detection system to assist with investigations in Fairfield County. In Massachusetts, two men were arrested for flying a drone near Logan International Airport in Boston, while in California, a Chinese national was charged for illegally filming a SpaceX launch with a drone near Vandenburg Space Force Base.

Despite federal officials’ assurances that the drones do not pose a threat, there is still significant uncertainty about the source and intent of these sightings. Some officials, including U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, have called for greater transparency regarding the investigation. “One, we need a briefing for the members of the Senate to figure out what’s going on here,” Klobuchar said during an interview. “Two, we need more transparency.”

Local officials like Belleville Mayor Michael Melham have adopted a cautious approach, instructing police to call the bomb squad and requiring hazmat suits when dealing with downed drones. “We just don’t know what these things are, so we are being cautious,” Melham said.

As the investigation continues, federal authorities are working to clarify the situation, but some have suggested that the drone activity could be linked to a broader trend of increasing drone use, with some instances possibly being “copycat” behavior fueled by media coverage. The FBI, along with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, is working to determine whether the sightings represent a national security concern or simply a misunderstanding.

Despite ongoing investigations and heightened concerns, officials remain cautious about jumping to conclusions, and many agree that there is no immediate evidence to suggest that these drones represent a serious threat to national security. As the situation develops, authorities are continuing their efforts to monitor the skies and address the public’s concerns.

Trump Administration Stacked with Donors and Billionaire Backers

Nearly three dozen individuals appointed to serve in Donald Trump’s incoming administration have contributed financially to his campaign or supporting groups, according to an analysis of federal campaign records conducted by CNN. This highlights the significant role of wealthy donors in shaping the new government.

Notable among these donors is tech mogul Elon Musk, recognized as the largest disclosed political contributor in the 2024 election cycle. Although not officially part of Trump’s Cabinet, Musk has taken a central role in the administration’s transition process. He has been instrumental in developing the Department of Government Efficiency initiative, advising on personnel decisions, interacting with global leaders, and meeting lawmakers to discuss federal downsizing.

The analysis reveals that eight Cabinet appointees and their spouses have collectively donated over $37 million to Trump’s efforts. Linda McMahon, the billionaire wrestling executive selected to head the Education Department, has led these contributions. In addition, two other Cabinet picks, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik and Florida Rep. Mike Waltz, transferred campaign funds to pro-Trump efforts.

Musk alone has donated more than $277 million during this election cycle, with over $262 million directed to Trump’s campaign. Most of Musk’s contributions flowed to a super PAC he created to mobilize Republican voters in swing states. Brendan Glavin, research director at OpenSecrets, remarked, “No individual outside of self-funded candidates has spent as much to shape federal elections in a single cycle.”

Glavin further noted that Trump’s donors are being appointed to positions directly influencing policy, unlike the traditional trend of appointing donors to ceremonial roles.

The CNN review, covering over 90 high-level appointees announced in the five weeks since Trump’s victory, identified more than 30 donors who supported his campaign or affiliated groups. Trump transition team spokesman Brian Hughes defended these appointments, stating, “Millions of Americans joined President Trump in the movement to restore our nation’s greatness. Some of those who supported the campaign and helped deliver this decisive victory will now work with the president to fulfill his vision.”

This surge in donor involvement is a marked contrast from Trump’s first term, when five Cabinet members donated nearly $8 million combined, mostly driven by McMahon’s contributions in 2016. For the 2024 election, donations by Trump’s Cabinet far exceed those of President Joe Biden’s appointees, who collectively gave less than $100,000 during the 2020 election.

Billionaires Driving Policy

Elon Musk’s financial contributions tower over other donors. McMahon follows closely, donating $21.2 million, primarily to Make America Great Again, Inc., Trump’s leading super PAC. Additional seven-figure contributors include Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, selected for Commerce Secretary; hedge fund executive Scott Bessent, chosen for Treasury Secretary; and former Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler, tapped for the Small Business Administration.

Loeffler’s husband, Jeff Sprecher, also made substantial contributions, exceeding $2 million to pro-Trump efforts. Sprecher, CEO of the Intercontinental Exchange and owner of the New York Stock Exchange, appeared alongside Trump at the exchange’s opening bell ceremony. Loeffler’s spokesperson, Caitlin O’Dea, stated, “Senator Loeffler is proud to support President Trump for the same reasons millions of Americans gave him a historic victory: to restore prosperity, security, and opportunity.”

Trump’s renewed support from billionaires and corporate leaders represents a stark turnaround from the backlash he faced following the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021. Wealthy tech leaders are now backing Trump, seeking regulatory rollbacks and business-friendly policies.

Musk’s unprecedented donations helped Trump close the financial gap against Democratic rival Kamala Harris, who raised $1 billion after securing her party’s nomination in July. Super PACs, which face no donation limits but are prohibited from direct coordination with campaigns, became pivotal in the race. However, a 2024 Federal Election Commission ruling allowed Musk to align his ground game efforts with Trump’s campaign, further amplifying their impact.

Critics argue that such immense spending highlights flaws in the campaign finance system. Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, commented, “Musk exemplifies how campaign finance laws have failed. I fear for departments run by billionaires uninterested in their agency’s purpose.”

Still, defenders see value in wealthy appointees. Former Virginia congressman Tom Davis explained, “There’s nothing wrong with successful individuals giving back through government service. Their contributions reflect loyalty.”

Friends, Family, and High-Profile Appointments

Presidents traditionally reward donors with ambassadorships or honorary roles. Trump’s picks for such posts follow this pattern, with billionaires among his donors assuming diplomatic assignments. For instance, Arkansas investor Warren Stephens is Trump’s choice for ambassador to the United Kingdom, while Charles Kushner, named ambassador to France, is a close family member and donor.

Kushner, who donated $2 million to pro-Trump causes and received a presidential pardon in 2020, is Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law. Real estate tycoon Tom Barrack, another major donor, is Trump’s selection as ambassador to Turkey. Longtime Trump associate Steve Witkoff, who contributed $250,000 to a pro-Trump super PAC, will serve as a special envoy to the Middle East.

These appointments illustrate Trump’s preference for rewarding loyalty while consolidating power within a trusted network of allies and donors.

As the new administration takes shape, critics and supporters alike will closely monitor how these financially influential appointees influence policy and governance in Trump’s second term.

Trump Calls for an End to Daylight Saving Time, Citing Inconvenience and Cost

President-elect Donald Trump announced on Friday that Republicans would aim to abolish daylight saving time, describing it as both “inconvenient” and “costly” for the nation.

“The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Saving Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t! Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation,” Trump shared in a post on Truth Social.

Efforts to address daylight saving time have been a recurring topic in Congress. For years, lawmakers have introduced proposals to make daylight saving time permanent. However, these bills have consistently failed to pass through both chambers.

Advocates for making daylight saving time permanent argue that such a change would eliminate the need for Americans to reset their clocks in the fall and spring. They highlight that extended evening sunlight would provide more opportunities for outdoor activities and potentially improve overall well-being.

Critics of the proposal, however, point to its drawbacks. They argue that permanent daylight saving time would result in darker mornings for a significant part of the year. This could have safety implications, as children might have to go to school or wait for buses during hours of darkness.

An alternative proposal, making standard time permanent, would have the opposite effect. It would ensure brighter mornings throughout the year but would mean sacrificing extended daylight in the evening.

At this stage, it remains unclear whether Trump supports the adoption of permanent daylight saving time or favors reverting to permanent standard time. The Hill reached out to Trump’s transition team for clarification, but no response was provided.

Daylight saving time has been a fixture in most parts of the United States since the 1960s. Its origins, however, date back to 1918 when then-President Woodrow Wilson first introduced the concept.

India and Bangladesh: The Strain in Ties and the Rising Tide of Anger

India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri recently visited Bangladesh during a period of strained relations, carrying not a message of goodwill but a list of grievances. The visit underscored India’s growing frustration and anger over the rising incidents of violence against Hindus under Bangladesh’s current regime. The situation has highlighted the fragility of bilateral ties and the urgent need for recalibration.

In recent weeks, violence against Hindus in Bangladesh has escalated, with several attacks on temples and religious sites. India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar informed the Indian Parliament that the government had “taken serious note” of these incidents, which included attacks on a Puja mandap in Tantibazar, Dhaka, and thefts at the Jeshoreshwari Kali temple in Satkhira during Durga Puja 2024. These acts of aggression have sparked outrage in India, culminating in protests near the Bangladesh border in West Bengal and an attack on the Bangladeshi consulate in Tripura.

Adding fuel to the fire was the arrest of a Hindu monk, recently expelled from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), on charges of sedition. This incident further angered Hindu communities in India, leading to heightened tensions between the two nations.

To attribute these incidents solely to recent political developments in Bangladesh would be an oversimplification. The roots of this unrest lie in a complex and bloody history of persecution faced by the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. Anti-India sentiment has long simmered among the Bangladeshi populace, particularly among the younger generation. Many view India as an “overbearing neighbour,” and there is widespread belief that the recently ousted government under Sheikh Hasina maintained an “unequal relationship” with India.

This sentiment has only intensified under the interim government led by Dr. Mohammed Yunus. India’s perceived overreliance on Sheikh Hasina during her tenure has left the new regime viewing India as an unreliable ally. Moreover, India’s domestic policies under a pro-Hindu government have exacerbated the alienation of Bangladeshi Muslims, further straining ties.

Critics argue that India’s unyielding support for Sheikh Hasina alienated other stakeholders in Bangladesh. When Hasina was ousted and sought asylum in India, it was initially deemed a temporary measure. However, her extended stay has raised questions about India’s intentions. While granting her refuge was seen as “an honourable thing,” critics point out that India has not engaged with Bangladeshi stakeholders to facilitate her extradition. This lack of action has led to accusations of India using its flexible refugee policy as a “convenient route” to keep Hasina on Indian soil indefinitely.

Compounding the issue is Hasina’s vocal criticism of the current Bangladeshi regime from Indian territory. In a recent virtual address ahead of Misri’s visit, Hasina labeled the Yunus government as “fascist” and accused it of enabling terrorist activities. She also raised concerns about the attacks on minorities, mirroring India’s diplomatic stance. However, her remarks have been perceived as politically motivated and damaging to India-Bangladesh relations.

The Indian government’s silence on Hasina’s statements has raised questions. Why is India allowing her to use its platform for political commentary? Why is it not restraining her from worsening an already fragile relationship? This perceived indifference has fueled public anger in Bangladesh, with many attributing the attacks on Hindus not only to religious discrimination but also to frustration over India’s unwavering support for Hasina.

The perception of India as a biased neighbor is further reinforced by its inability to address historical grievances. India’s actions, or lack thereof, have widened the gap between the two nations, undermining decades of historical and cultural ties. The current dispensation in Bangladesh has ample reasons to harbor resentment against India, given the latter’s perceived meddling in its internal affairs.

India’s asylum policy for Hasina is particularly contentious. While her initial request for refuge was for a temporary period, her prolonged stay has led to accusations of favoritism. India’s refusal to visibly engage with the Bangladeshi government on her extradition has only deepened the rift. This situation, coupled with Hasina’s critical remarks against the Yunus regime from Indian soil, has strengthened the perception that India is interfering in Bangladesh’s domestic politics.

The Indian government’s support for Hasina during her tenure as Prime Minister also came at a cost. By prioritizing relations with her government, India neglected other political factions in Bangladesh, thereby alienating potential allies. This imbalance has left India in a precarious position, with its ties to the current regime hanging by a thread.

To mend this fractured relationship, India must adopt a more balanced and inclusive approach. The escalating violence against Hindus in Bangladesh is a symptom of deeper issues that require immediate attention. While it is crucial to address religious discrimination, India must also acknowledge and address the underlying political and historical grievances that fuel anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh.

The strained relations between India and Bangladesh underscore the complexities of regional diplomacy. As a neighbor, India must recalibrate its policies to ensure a more equitable and mutually beneficial relationship. This includes addressing the concerns of the current Bangladeshi regime, while also safeguarding the rights of minorities.

In conclusion, India’s relationship with Bangladesh is at a crossroads. The escalating violence against Hindus and the growing mistrust between the two nations highlight the urgent need for a reset in bilateral ties. By adopting a more nuanced and inclusive approach, India can work towards rebuilding trust and fostering a stronger partnership with its neighbor. Failure to do so risks pushing the relationship to an all-time low, with far-reaching consequences for regional stability.

Ex-Ivy League Grad Arrested in UnitedHealthcare CEO Murder

Luigi Nicholas Mangione, the 26-year-old charged with murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, has shocked friends and family with his alleged actions. Mangione, a former valedictorian and Ivy League graduate, was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, days after the shooting. His arrest, while dining at a McDonald’s, followed a tip from a vigilant employee who recognized him from media-circulated CCTV images.

Mangione, who was last known to reside in Honolulu, Hawaii, has no prior criminal record and comes from a wealthy family in Maryland. According to court documents, he is currently being held in Pennsylvania on gun-related charges, while New York prosecutors have filed murder charges against him.

Background of Luigi Mangione

Born and raised in Maryland, Mangione has ties to San Francisco and a previous address in Honolulu. His LinkedIn profile lists his most recent job as a data engineer at TrueCar, a California-based platform for buying new and used cars.

Mangione graduated as valedictorian from an elite prep school in Baltimore in 2016, where he delivered a graduation speech celebrating his peers’ courage to “explore the unknown and try new things.” A former classmate, Freddie Leatherbury, described Mangione as “smart, athletic, and friendly,” noting that he came from a wealthy family. “Quite honestly, he had everything going for him,” Leatherbury said, expressing disbelief at Mangione’s arrest.

Mangione went on to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science from the University of Pennsylvania in 2020, where he was a teaching assistant and founded a video game development club.

His family, which includes his cousin, Maryland state legislator Nino Mangione, issued a statement through social media. “Our family is shocked and devastated by Luigi’s arrest,” Nino Mangione wrote. “We offer our prayers to the family of Brian Thompson and ask people to pray for all involved.”

Mangione’s grandfather, Nick Mangione Sr., was a millionaire real estate developer and philanthropist, and the family once owned a country club in Baltimore.

Evidence Found on Mangione

Authorities reported that Mangione was found in possession of a 3D-printed gun and silencer, clothing and a mask resembling those used by the shooter, and a fake New Jersey ID. He also carried $10,000 in cash, including $2,000 in foreign currency, although Mangione disputed this amount in court.

Investigators discovered a three-page handwritten document that allegedly revealed Mangione’s animosity toward corporate America, which police say hints at his motivation for the crime. NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch stated that the writings “speak to both his motivation and mindset.”

Ghost Gun Connection

The weapon found with Mangione was identified as a “ghost gun,” an untraceable firearm assembled from parts, potentially made using a 3D printer. NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny noted that the weapon was capable of firing 9mm rounds and was likely used in the shooting.

Arrest and Legal Proceedings

Mangione was arrested without incident after police approached him at McDonald’s, where he was wearing a blue medical mask and working on a silver laptop. Officers recognized him immediately, and when asked for identification, he provided a fake ID. Upon being questioned about his recent whereabouts, Mangione became visibly nervous and started shaking, according to a criminal complaint.

He is currently being held without bail in Pennsylvania and faces extradition to New York to stand trial for murder.

Investigation Details

The investigation into Brian Thompson’s murder included the release of CCTV footage and nine photos, some showing the suspect at a Starbucks shortly before the attack. Surveillance videos captured the gunman, who had worn a mask during the crime, discarding evidence, including a backpack in Central Park. He was later seen taking a taxi to a bus station near the George Washington Bridge, where he likely fled Manhattan.

The FBI offered a $50,000 reward, adding to the NYPD’s $10,000 reward for information leading to the suspect’s capture.

Reaction from UnitedHealth Group

Following Mangione’s arrest, UnitedHealth Group released a statement expressing hope that the apprehension would bring relief to Thompson’s family, friends, and colleagues. “We thank law enforcement and will continue to work with them on this investigation. We ask that everyone respect the family’s privacy as they mourn,” a spokesperson said.

Praise for the Tipster

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro commended the individual who recognized Mangione at McDonald’s and alerted authorities. “A Pennsylvania resident saw something early this morning and said something to our local police,” Shapiro stated. “The real hero in this story is the person who called 911.”

Shapiro also condemned online narratives portraying the alleged killer as a hero. “In some dark corners, this killer is being hailed as a hero. Hear me on this, he is no hero,” he said.

Next Steps

As authorities backtrack Mangione’s movements from Manhattan to Pennsylvania, investigators continue to piece together the timeline of events leading to his arrest. “We’ll be working, backtracking his steps from New York to Altoona,” Chief Kenny said.

Video footage shows Mangione arriving at the Blair County Courthouse in Pennsylvania in handcuffs. When asked if he required a public defender, Mangione requested more time to decide.

Brian Thompson’s tragic murder has left a void in the corporate world, and Mangione’s arrest marks a significant step in the ongoing investigation. The case, which has drawn national attention, highlights the importance of public vigilance and the collaborative efforts of law enforcement.

Trump Reaffirms Tough Immigration Policies, Suggests Flexibility for Dreamers

In an interview with Kristen Welker on “Meet the Press,” President-elect Donald Trump stated his intention to pursue a comprehensive deportation program targeting individuals residing in the United States illegally. He emphasized, “you have no choice” but to remove all undocumented immigrants, including potentially deporting American citizen family members of those individuals. Additionally, Trump plans to end birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Despite these hardline measures, he expressed a willingness to work with Democrats to protect Dreamers—undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children—allowing them to stay in the country.

Trump’s remarks represent his most detailed comments on immigration since his election victory in November. He reiterated his campaign pledge to focus first on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records before extending efforts to include others. “We have to get the criminals out of our country,” Trump asserted. However, he declined to clarify the specific crimes that would qualify for deportation.

Addressing the deportation program’s scope, Trump acknowledged its difficulty but insisted it is necessary. “It’s a very tough thing to do…but you have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally,” he explained. He contrasted undocumented immigrants with those waiting for legal entry, saying, “The people that have been treated very unfairly are the people that have been on line for 10 years to come into the country.”

When pressed by Welker on who else might face deportation, Trump said, “Others are other people outside of criminals,” suggesting the program could expand beyond those with criminal records.

The discussion comes amid an increase in unauthorized border crossings during President Joe Biden’s tenure, though recent executive actions have reduced the numbers. Trump has long made border security a cornerstone of his political agenda, frequently citing crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to justify stricter policies. However, a 2024 study by the National Institute of Justice found that undocumented immigrants in Texas were arrested for violent crimes at less than half the rate of native-born Americans between 2012 and 2018.

Trump also addressed families with mixed immigration status, where some members are U.S. citizens while others are undocumented. Echoing comments by Tom Homan, his choice for border czar, Trump indicated that such families would be deported together. “I don’t want to be breaking up families,” he said, adding, “The only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back.”

Welker questioned Trump about the controversial zero-tolerance policy from his first term, which led to the separation of families at the border. Trump ultimately ended the practice but faced widespread criticism. “We don’t have to separate families,” he said. “We’ll send the whole family very humanely back to the country where they came.”

When asked if family separations would return under his administration, Trump responded, “It depends on the family. If they come here illegally but their family is here legally, then the family has a choice. The person that came in illegally can go out, or they can all go out together.”

Trump also announced plans to end birthright citizenship, describing it as “ridiculous” and vowing to achieve this through executive action. Such a move would almost certainly face legal challenges. Trump argued that birthright citizenship is unique to the U.S., stating, “We’re the only country that has it, you know.” However, a review by the Library of Congress contradicts this claim, noting that over 30 countries, including Canada and Brazil, grant birthright citizenship.

In contrast to his firm stance on deportations and birthright citizenship, Trump adopted a more conciliatory tone when discussing Dreamers—individuals covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Many Dreamers have lived in the U.S. for decades and are now contributing members of society. “We have to do something about the Dreamers,” Trump said. “These are people that have been brought here at a very young age, and many of these are middle-aged people now; they don’t even speak the language of their country.”

Trump emphasized his willingness to collaborate with Democrats to address the status of Dreamers. “I will work with the Democrats on a plan,” he said, acknowledging that many Dreamers have established successful lives in the U.S. “Some of them are no longer young people, and in many cases, they’ve become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases, they have small businesses. Some cases they might have large businesses, and we’re going to have to do something with them.”

Trump’s immigration policies remain a polarizing issue, blending stringent enforcement measures with selective accommodations for certain groups. His plans to end birthright citizenship and expand deportations signal a continuation of the hardline approach that defined his first presidential campaign. At the same time, his openness to bipartisan solutions for Dreamers suggests some room for compromise in an otherwise uncompromising agenda.

Trump’s Vision for His Second Term: Policy Plans and Promises

President-elect Donald Trump has laid out his agenda for his upcoming presidency, detailing plans to address a range of issues including immigration, the economy, and foreign policy. Speaking in a recent interview with Kristen Welker of NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Trump emphasized several key areas where he plans to make immediate and sweeping changes upon taking office on January 20. These include granting pardons to those convicted in the January 6 Capitol attack, extending tax cuts, and working towards legislative solutions to ensure Dreamers can remain in the United States legally.

Trump also indicated his intention to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, a move he reiterated as part of his broader approach to immigration reform. Regarding the January 6 rioters, Trump expressed that he would issue pardons on his first day in office, citing the harsh treatment they have endured in prison. “These people are living in hell,” Trump stated, underscoring his commitment to taking action.

In the interview, Trump spoke about the extension of tax cuts passed during his first term, stating he would work to maintain those policies. He also made it clear that he would not impose restrictions on abortion pills. In terms of immigration, Trump reiterated his stance on deportation, saying he would begin by targeting convicted criminals and proceed with broader efforts to remove those who entered the country illegally. He also emphasized his intent to tackle birthright citizenship, stating that he might seek a constitutional amendment to end the practice, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the parents’ legal status.

Despite these hardline positions, Trump showed flexibility on certain issues. When discussing the future of Dreamers, the young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, he expressed willingness to work with Democrats on a legislative solution to allow them to stay in the country. “I will work with the Democrats on a plan,” he said, acknowledging the positive contributions of many Dreamers who have become successful in the U.S.

On the subject of raising the federal minimum wage, which has remained stagnant at $7.25 per hour since 2009, Trump indicated he might consider such a move but emphasized the need for discussions with state governors. “I will agree, it’s a very low number,” he said, signaling openness to raising the wage.

Trump’s comments extended to his approach to federal programs like Social Security and Medicare, where he promised not to raise the age for eligibility or impose cuts, which had been proposed by other figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. When asked about whether increasing the eligibility age or cutting benefits was “off the table,” Trump firmly agreed, saying, “I won’t do it.”

Trump’s posture throughout the interview remained calm and measured, but at times he engaged in pointed exchanges with Welker, especially when questioned about past statements. When asked about the 2020 election, Trump repeated his claim that the election was “stolen,” refusing to accept Joe Biden’s victory. He explained that he believed the 2020 race was “too big to rig,” in contrast to this year’s election, which he described as less susceptible to manipulation. Trump expressed pride in his election win, emphasizing his success in the popular vote and his capture of all seven key battleground states. “I’m getting called by everybody,” he said, recounting that Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, had even reached out for dinner. “People like me now, you know?” Trump remarked, reflecting on his increased popularity compared to his first presidential run.

In a strikingly mixed message, Trump discussed political retribution, expressing that although he feels he has been wronged, he would not seek vengeance through a special prosecutor to investigate Biden. “I’m not looking to go back into the past,” he said. “Retribution will be through success.” Nonetheless, Trump made it clear that he would seek to appoint loyal allies to key law enforcement positions, including Pam Bondi for attorney general and Kash Patel for FBI director. These appointments, Trump suggested, would have autonomy in their work. He also targeted figures involved in investigations into his actions, calling special counsel Jack Smith “very corrupt” and labeling the members of the House committee investigating January 6 as “political thugs and, you know, creeps,” adding that they should face jail time for their conduct.

In terms of foreign policy, Trump reiterated his aim to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, though he hinted that the U.S. might reduce military aid to the country under his administration. When questioned about NATO, Trump suggested that the U.S. could withdraw from the alliance if European nations did not fulfill their financial obligations. “If they pay their bills, absolutely,” he said, signaling his conditional support for NATO. On Syria, Trump expressed doubt about President Bashar al-Assad’s ability to maintain power, given the challenges he has faced, but acknowledged that Assad has remained resilient despite expectations of his downfall.

Trump also indicated that his second term would emphasize unity, a contrast to the divisive rhetoric of his first term. When asked whether the message of his second inaugural address would be similar to his 2017 speech, which famously highlighted “American carnage,” Trump asserted that his new message would focus on healing and bringing the country together. “We’re going to have a message,” he said, adding, “It’s going to be a message of unity.” When Welker pressed him on whether that meant there would be “no American carnage,” Trump confirmed, saying, “No American carnage, no.”

Trump’s comments also covered his personal plans for his second term. He confirmed that his children would not be joining him in the White House as aides, as they did during his first term. While he did not reveal the role his wife, Melania Trump, would play, he described her as both “very elegant” and “very popular.”

Trump’s vision for his second term remains focused on addressing key issues that resonate with his base, from immigration reform to tax cuts and foreign policy shifts. His willingness to work with Democrats on issues such as Dreamers and his openness to raising the minimum wage reflect his nuanced approach to governance. At the same time, his hardline stance on issues like deportation and birthright citizenship signals his commitment to his core policy promises. The coming months will determine how these promises are translated into action as Trump prepares to take office again in 2025.

Joe Biden’s Legacy: Challenges Await Donald Trump in January

Joe Biden’s presidency appears set to leave behind a legacy of significant challenges for Donald Trump when he assumes office on January 20. The issues range from economic instability, including a skyrocketing $36 trillion federal debt—up by $13 trillion since 2020—to broader domestic and international crises. These include persistent inflation despite falling energy prices, dangerously depleted Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and a dwindling weapons stockpile. Other concerns include an educational system that struggles to teach basic skills, a housing crisis, a manufacturing slowdown, and a Justice Department facing waning public confidence.

Compounding these problems is the responsibility of managing U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s war with Russia and restoring stability in the Middle East. The multitude of challenges underscores the urgency for Trump to prepare to “hit the ground running.”

“If Joe Biden were a decent fellow and a patriot,” the article states, “he would be using his remaining weeks as president to fix some of the disasters he has created. Instead, he is doing just the opposite.”

Rather than seeking to rectify the issues created under his administration, Biden appears focused on spending what remains of the $375 billion authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The administration’s approach seems designed to ensure that these funds, controlled by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, remain out of reach for Trump’s incoming team.

Despite the billions allocated for green initiatives and infrastructure projects, including $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations and $42 billion to improve rural internet access, many programs have failed to deliver results. For instance, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s promise of 500,000 charging stations resulted in only eight being constructed. Similarly, Vice President Kamala Harris’s internet expansion efforts yielded little progress, symbolizing the administration’s inefficiency.

A hidden-camera video from Project Veritas captured Environmental Protection Agency adviser Brent Efron acknowledging the administration’s race to spend IRA funds. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron said, likening the situation to being on the Titanic and “throwing gold bars off the edge.” He also admitted that safeguards to prevent fraud and abuse had been overlooked in the rush, with funds being directed to tribes, nonprofits, and states to circumvent potential clawbacks by a Trump administration.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk commented on the video, suggesting it shows “The U.S. government is actively working to undermine the American people.”

In another move perceived as undermining Trump’s agenda, Biden agreed to protect some 42,000 Social Security Administration employees from returning to in-person work, a decision that complicates efforts to reform the federal workforce.

Additionally, Biden has not prioritized refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), which was depleted in 2022 to combat soaring gasoline prices. At the start of Biden’s presidency, the SPR held 638 million barrels of crude oil; today, it holds just 392 million barrels, marking the lowest reserve level in 40 years. Although there has been a 12 percent increase in reserves over the past year, the stockpile remains insufficient to cushion against significant price shocks.

On the fiscal front, Biden leaves behind a Treasury portfolio that relies heavily on short-term debt, a shift attributed to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. Instead of issuing long-term bonds to finance the $1.8 trillion federal budget deficit, Yellen opted for two-year Treasury bills to avoid triggering a surge in mortgage rates. However, this strategy has left the country vulnerable to higher interest costs.

Robbert van Batenburg of the Bear Traps Report estimates that 30 percent of the debt is now in short-term notes, compared to just 15 percent in 2023. “The Treasury now faces a substantial volume of short-term debt maturing annually, which must be refinanced at significantly higher interest rates,” van Batenburg said, emphasizing the strain this will place on future budgets.

Beyond the economic challenges, Detroit automakers are grappling with billions in losses and layoffs, spurred by Biden’s aggressive electric vehicle mandates. Meanwhile, millions of undocumented migrants are straining budgets in cities led by Democrats, violent crime rates have risen due to weakened law enforcement policies, and military leaders warn of dwindling weapon supplies.

The incoming Trump administration will inherit these compounded challenges, described as “land mines on many fronts.”

Rather than attempting to mitigate the damage, the Biden administration appears focused on accelerating its policy agenda. “Now we’re just trying to get the money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop it all,” Efron reiterated in the undercover video.

The extent of the challenges underscores the uphill battle that awaits Trump’s team, as they prepare to address the economic, social, and geopolitical issues left in Biden’s wake.

US Faces Alarming Health Challenges Amid Minimal Life Expectancy Gains

The United States is projected to experience only marginal improvements in life expectancy over the coming decades, underscoring significant health challenges, according to researchers. Forecasts by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) suggest life expectancy in the U.S. will rise from 78.3 years in 2022 to just 80.4 years by 2050.

Published in The Lancet, the analysis assessed the effects of hundreds of diseases and health risks on the U.S. and individual states while comparing these outcomes to over 200 other countries. The findings indicate that the U.S. is falling behind in life expectancy gains, ranking 66th out of 204 countries by 2050, a steep drop from 49th in 2022. This decline places the U.S. behind most high-income nations and even some middle-income ones.

The gender gap in life expectancy is also expected to narrow, with women seeing smaller improvements compared to men. By 2050, the U.S. is forecasted to rank 74th globally for female life expectancy, down from 51st in 2022, while men’s rankings will fall from 51st to 65th.

IHME attributes the modest gains in U.S. life expectancy to a predicted decline in mortality from major causes of death such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. However, the models highlight that tackling key health risks could significantly boost longevity. Reducing obesity, smoking, and drug use disorders could each add approximately half a year to life expectancy by 2050.

Christopher Murray, IHME director and co-senior author of the research, emphasized the critical role of obesity in shaping the nation’s health trajectory. “In spite of modest increases in life expectancy overall, our models forecast health improvements slowing down due to rising rates of obesity, which is a serious risk factor to many chronic diseases and forecasted to leap to levels never before seen,” he stated. He also warned of the growing scale of the problem, predicting that over 260 million Americans will be affected by obesity by 2050. “This signals a public health crisis of unimaginable scale,” Murray said.

While some advancements, like the popularity of GLP-1 medications, show promise in combating obesity, their long-term adoption and impact remain uncertain. IHME’s analysis did not incorporate these medications into its projections.

Another major challenge facing the U.S. is the ongoing drug overdose crisis. Although recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest overdose deaths have started to decline from record highs, IHME predicts the overall rates will rise significantly over the next few decades. The study estimates that by 2050, the U.S. will have the world’s highest rate of age-standardized mortality due to drug use disorders, more than double that of Canada, the second-highest country.

Ali Mokdad, IHME professor and lead author of the report, highlighted the lasting effects of the opioid epidemic, declared a public health emergency in 2017. “The stark contrast that’s forecasted in the next 30 years comes after a concerted effort by federal, state, and local government agencies and health systems. The opioid epidemic is far from over, and greater effectiveness and continued expansion of programs to prevent and treat drug use are still needed,” Mokdad said.

The IHME models also suggest that eliminating risks in three crucial areas—environmental, behavioral and metabolic factors, and childhood nutrition and vaccination—could result in 550,000 fewer deaths in 2050 alone. This improvement would bring U.S. life expectancy up by nearly four years, aligning it with Canada’s current projections.

“The rapid decline of the U.S. in global rankings from 2022 to 2050 rings the alarm for immediate action,” said Dr. Stein Emil Vollset, co-senior author and IHME affiliate professor. “The U.S. must change course and find new and better health strategies and policies that slow down the decline in future health outcomes.”

While some progress is anticipated in the fight against heart disease, stroke, and diabetes, the U.S. faces an uphill battle in addressing obesity, drug use, and other health risks. Without decisive action, the country’s global standing in life expectancy is set to deteriorate further, presenting a critical challenge for policymakers and public health experts.

US economy remains strong despite uncertainty

The US economy is currently performing well, with economists from Bank of America (BofA) projecting continued growth into 2025. According to a research note released on Monday, the bank’s economics team, led by Claudio Irigoyen, anticipates the economy will expand at an annualized rate of 2.4% in 2025. This projection surpasses the consensus estimates, which expect growth of around 2%. Despite the challenges posed by President-elect Donald Trump’s economic policies, including proposed tariffs, corporate tax cuts, and restrictions on immigration, BofA maintains a positive outlook.

These proposed policies, which many economists view as inflationary, could slow economic growth and add pressure to the already high federal deficit. In particular, the Federal Reserve’s decision-making regarding interest rates could be complicated, given the potential economic effects of these policies. Higher rates, combined with a tough tariff stance, would likely strengthen the US dollar, creating ripple effects across global financial markets. BofA has warned that such a combination could lead to “a major shock, not only for the US economy but the rest of the world.”

Despite these concerns, BofA emphasizes that the US is better positioned than many other nations to weather any economic disruptions stemming from Trump’s policies. “We like to say that the US imports a lot of stuff, but it doesn’t import recessions,” said Aditya Bhave, senior US economist at Bank of America, during a press briefing on Monday. “It only exports recessions.” Bhave explained that any changes in US trade policy are more likely to affect other economies than the US itself, due to the inherent resilience of the US economy compared to other developed countries.

Recent economic data supports this optimistic view. Consumer confidence in the US is at its highest level in 18 months, and economic output has reached levels not seen since April 2022. Retail sales in October exceeded expectations, and the unemployment rate remains steady at around 4%. Inflation has also moderated, moving closer to the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. “The world right now is one in which the US economy has consistently outperformed [for] almost two years,” Bhave said. “Europe is struggling, China is struggling, so the US is going into any potential disruption to trade policy on much more solid footing than Europe and China are.”

One of the most discussed elements of Trump’s economic agenda is his stance on tariffs. The president-elect has promised to impose blanket tariffs of at least 10% on all trading partners, with a particularly harsh 60% tariff on Chinese imports. If other countries retaliate with their own tariffs, the resulting trade war could lead to prolonged inflationary pressures. However, BofA does not expect this scenario to materialize in full. The bank’s baseline forecast anticipates tariffs on China and other countries, but it expects the actual tariffs to be lower than those promised during the campaign. BofA remains “moderately optimistic” that a full-blown trade war can be avoided.

Despite these risks, Bhave noted that tariffs would likely have a larger impact on capital expenditures and exports than on the US itself. “Tariffs can be very disruptive in terms of capital expenditures [and] obviously exports,” he said. However, since the US imports more goods and services from other countries than it exports, the impact of tariffs would be more detrimental to those regions than to the US. “Just by definition, the tariffs pose a much greater threat to those regions than to the US,” Bhave explained.

While there are uncertainties surrounding Trump’s trade policies and other proposed economic changes, BofA’s outlook on the US economy remains positive. The country’s economic resilience, along with strong domestic growth trends, positions it well to handle potential disruptions in global trade. The combination of consumer confidence, strong retail sales, and a steady labor market are key factors supporting this outlook. Furthermore, while tariffs may cause short-term disruptions, their long-term effects are expected to be less severe for the US than for other countries that rely more heavily on exports to the US.

As the US economy heads into 2025, it faces some challenges, but the fundamentals appear strong. The Bank of America’s optimistic forecast of 2.4% growth for the year ahead reflects the confidence that many economists have in the resilience of the US economy. Although trade policies and other economic changes could create uncertainties, the US is better equipped than other nations to manage these challenges. According to Bhave, “The US imports a lot of stuff, but it doesn’t import recessions.” The US economy, supported by strong consumer confidence, solid economic output, and low unemployment, is likely to continue outperforming other developed economies in the years to come.

CAPAC Elects New Leadership for the 119th Congress, Highlighting Diversity and Representation

The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) has announced its leadership team for the 119th Congress, with key roles assigned to representatives emphasizing the growing influence and diversity of South Asian Americans in U.S. politics. Representative Ami Bera, M.D. (D-CA), was elected as Whip, while Representative-elect Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) was named Freshman Representative. These appointments underscore the caucus’ commitment to representing a broad spectrum of Asian American voices.

Representative Ami Bera, the longest-serving Indian American in Congress, has been a consistent advocate for healthcare reform and international diplomacy throughout his tenure. In his new role as Whip, Bera will take on a central responsibility in coordinating legislative strategies and promoting unity within CAPAC. Expressing his enthusiasm for the position, Bera stated, “Deeply honored to serve as Whip for the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in the next Congress! I look forward to working with this new leadership team to advance CAPAC’s vital mission.”

Suhas Subramanyam, who recently achieved a historic milestone as the first Indian American to represent Virginia in Congress, joins the CAPAC leadership with a vision for progress. His commitment to tackling pressing issues, such as climate change and technological innovation, will add a fresh perspective to the caucus. “It is an honor to serve in CAPAC’s leadership,” Subramanyam said. “As Freshman Representative, I look forward to working with my colleagues to uplift the voices of Asian American communities and tackle pressing challenges.”

The leadership of CAPAC for the 119th Congress will be headed by Representative Grace Meng (D-NY), who was elected Chair. Meng, a prominent advocate for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) communities, has dedicated her congressional career to addressing critical issues impacting these groups. “It is an honor to serve as Chair of CAPAC,” Meng said. “Throughout my time in Congress, I have championed the Asian American community, tackling issues like combating hate, reducing healthcare costs, and supporting small businesses.”

Meng’s leadership follows that of outgoing Chair Judy Chu, and she has pledged to build upon the caucus’ achievements by intensifying advocacy efforts. Her focus includes combating the surge in anti-Asian hate crimes, promoting economic equity, and ensuring federal policies address the unique challenges faced by AANHPI communities. “CAPAC was created to ensure the voices of AANHPI communities are not only heard but strongly represented at the federal level,” Meng explained. “I look forward to working with our diverse members to fight for policies that empower our communities.”

Representative Jill Tokuda (D-HI) will serve as Second Vice-Chair, adding to the diverse leadership that reflects CAPAC’s mission to amplify the voices of all AANHPI individuals. The caucus’ leadership team is determined to uphold CAPAC’s founding purpose of advocating for policies that address the needs and concerns of these communities.

As CAPAC prepares for the 119th Congress, the new leadership team is poised to champion transformative initiatives. Their collective efforts aim to address a range of issues, from combating hate and ensuring economic justice to fostering opportunities for small businesses and supporting climate resilience. The caucus’ work promises to amplify the voices of AANHPI communities while striving for inclusivity and equity on a national scale.

Tulsi Gabbard Faces Toughest Confirmation Challenge Among Trump’s Picks

Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, nominated by President-elect Trump to serve as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), is emerging as one of the most contentious confirmation cases in the new administration. While Trump’s other picks, such as Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and Kash Patel for FBI Director, have encountered obstacles, many believe Gabbard’s path is the steepest.

“I think Gabbard, out of the three, still has the toughest path,” a Senate GOP aide told The Hill. “[She] is the most at risk.” This sentiment reflects growing skepticism among Senate Republicans about Gabbard’s foreign policy positions and whether she can be trusted to oversee the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

Though Gabbard enjoys strong support from Trump’s inner circle, the Senate Republican Conference is less united. The conference includes defense hawks and staunch backers of Ukraine in its ongoing war with Russia—groups critical of Gabbard’s past comments about the conflict. She has been accused of expressing views sympathetic to Moscow, with her remarks echoed by Russian state media, which has praised her nomination. These concerns are compounded by her controversial 2017 visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad. While she later described Assad as a “brutal dictator,” her earlier comments suggesting he was not an enemy of the U.S. have left many uneasy.

Behind the scenes, some GOP members express fears about Gabbard’s reliability. “Behind closed doors, people think she might be compromised. Like it’s not hyperbole,” one GOP aide said. “There are members of our conference who think she’s a [Russian] asset.”

Publicly, however, Republican senators have rejected such allegations, standing by Gabbard despite the controversy. Notably, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who worked with her in Congress, has also dismissed claims of Russian influence. Yet bipartisan support for her nomination remains unlikely. “She’s not going to get any Democratic votes,” a Senate Republican said, emphasizing the narrow margin for error. To secure confirmation, Gabbard can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes.

Although Gabbard’s challenges are formidable, she is not alone in facing scrutiny. Pete Hegseth, nominated for Secretary of Defense, has also drawn significant criticism. His tenure leading veterans’ organizations was marred by allegations of financial mismanagement and sexual impropriety, including a 2017 sexual assault accusation, which he denies. “The allegation was ‘fully investigated’ and I was completely cleared,” Hegseth said before Thanksgiving. Despite this, Senator Lindsey Graham described the allegations as “very disturbing,” acknowledging that they complicate Hegseth’s path to confirmation.

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick to head the FBI, has sparked his own controversy. A staunch ally of the president, Patel has vowed to reform the bureau, including plans to purge personnel seen as disloyal to Trump and shut down its Washington, D.C., headquarters. While Senate Republicans have not outright dismissed Patel, some worry about his polarizing approach. Nonetheless, his resume, which includes roles as a prosecutor, National Security Council member, and aide to former House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes, has earned praise from certain lawmakers. “I think the conference will get behind him,” said Senator Bill Hagerty. He added, “What you’re seeing here in Washington is a lot of people that are shocked that we’re going to see real reform in an agency that is completely broken.”

For Gabbard, the concerns are more fundamental. Despite her military service in the Hawaii Army National Guard, including a deployment to Iraq, she has no experience in the intelligence community or its oversight. As DNI, she would oversee 18 intelligence agencies and a $70 billion budget. “Gun to my head, Gabbard is probably the toughest,” another GOP aide said, citing her controversial Syria stance and recent switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party as major issues. “Those are real concerns members have,” the aide added.

Next week, Gabbard plans to begin meeting with Senate Republicans to address their concerns, following the lead of Hegseth and Patel, who have already started lobbying lawmakers. While some senators remain apprehensive about all three nominees, others are inclined to respect Trump’s choices. “You take each one individually,” Senator Mike Rounds explained. “You look at … will they be a good fit for the department? What’s the reason why the president wants this person? You look at—is there any reason why this person should not be in that position?” He added, “You always do your best to give the president the benefit of the doubt because he’s the one who’s accountable for making the nomination in the first place.”

Despite these sentiments, Gabbard’s path to confirmation is fraught with hurdles. Her polarizing reputation and lack of bipartisan support mean her nomination hangs in a delicate balance. Whether she can overcome skepticism and secure the necessary votes remains to be seen, but her nomination has undoubtedly sparked debate about the direction of U.S. intelligence leadership.

Republicans Face Narrow Majority in House After Democrats Flip Key California Seat

Republicans will hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives next year, facing greater challenges to advance President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda as Democrats successfully flipped a significant seat in California. Democrat Adam Gray defeated GOP Rep. John Duarte in California’s 13th District, according to NBC News projections, following an extended vote count. This brings the Republican total to 220 seats versus 215 for Democrats. With such a narrow margin, Republicans can afford to lose only two votes on any House legislation if Democrats remain unified in opposition.

Duarte conceded the race on Tuesday evening, saying he called Gray to acknowledge the outcome, as reported by the Turlock Journal. This victory marks a crucial gain for Democrats, who flipped nine Republican-held seats across the nation, including three in California, while Republicans flipped eight Democratic-held seats.

California proved pivotal for the Democrats, with Gray’s win accompanied by victories for Democrats Derek Tran and George Whitesides, who unseated Republican Reps. Michelle Steel and Mike Garcia. Democrats also secured three seats in New York, one in Oregon, and benefited from redrawn congressional maps to flip one seat each in Alabama and Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Republicans gained seats in North Carolina due to its new congressional map and won key contests elsewhere. They unseated Democratic Reps. Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, flipped an open seat in Michigan, and defeated incumbents in Alaska and Colorado.

House races this election cycle attracted significant spending from campaigns and outside groups. Ad-tracking firm AdImpact reported that over $1.1 billion was spent on ads between September and Election Day. Democratic campaigns and allied organizations outpaced their Republican counterparts, spending $662 million compared to $485 million spent by the GOP.

The tight Republican majority reflects an increasingly competitive political landscape, partly influenced by the latest redistricting process. This narrowed the field of competitive races, leaving only about 40 House seats—roughly 10% of the chamber—decided by margins of less than 5%, according to NBC News Decision Desk data.

Despite losing control of the House, Democrats saw some encouraging trends. Vulnerable Democratic incumbents performed notably better than Vice President Kamala Harris, outpacing her by an average of 2.7 percentage points in House races, according to preliminary analysis by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The analysis, shared with NBC News, highlighted that Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in counties with lower education levels and a majority of voters of color.

Challenges Ahead for GOP Leadership

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, the party has a rare opportunity to advance its priorities through budget reconciliation. This legislative tool enables the majority party to bypass Senate filibusters and pass budget-related measures without needing Democratic support. However, the fragile Republican majority in the House could hinder these efforts.

Speaker Mike Johnson, who is expected to retain his position in the next Congress, will face significant hurdles in maintaining unity among his colleagues. The reconciliation package is expected to include extensions of tax cuts enacted in 2017 under Trump, which are set to expire next year. Proposals such as a tax exemption for income from tips, dubbed by Trump as “no tax on tips,” and the removal of the cap on the state and local tax deduction are likely components of this package.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a key Trump ally, is advocating for border security measures to be included in the reconciliation process. Trump has promised to initiate what he describes as “the largest deportation program in American history,” making immigration a central focus for his administration.

Further complicating the GOP’s legislative strategy are potential resignations and vacancies within the House. Trump has nominated two sitting House Republicans for key positions in his administration: Elise Stefanik of New York as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and Mike Waltz of Florida as national security adviser.

Adding to the uncertainty is the recent resignation of Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who stepped down after Trump selected him as the next attorney general. Gaetz later withdrew from consideration due to allegations of sexual misconduct but confirmed he would not join the next Congress despite winning re-election.

Should Stefanik and Waltz resign simultaneously, the Republican majority in the House could narrow to just one seat, 217 to 215, until their replacements are elected.

Special Elections on the Horizon

Efforts to fill these vacancies are already underway. Florida’s State Department has scheduled a special election to replace Gaetz and Waltz, with primaries for their deep-red districts set for January 28 and special elections to follow on April 1.

In New York, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul will be responsible for setting a special election to replace Stefanik once she formally resigns. According to state law, the special election must take place 70 to 80 days after the governor issues a proclamation.

The upcoming special elections will be critical for both parties as they navigate the challenges of a closely divided Congress. For Republicans, maintaining unity and avoiding further internal divisions will be essential to advancing their legislative priorities. Meanwhile, Democrats will likely leverage their gains to resist key aspects of Trump’s agenda, ensuring a contentious political landscape in the months ahead.

Trump May Replace Pentagon Nominee Pete Hegseth with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly reconsidering his decision to nominate Pete Hegseth for the position of defense secretary, according to a report by The Wall Street Journal. The publication, citing sources familiar with the matter, revealed that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is being considered as a replacement candidate.

Hegseth’s nomination has encountered significant challenges in Congress, primarily due to allegations surrounding both his personal conduct and professional life. According to the Journal, Trump’s allies are increasingly skeptical about Hegseth’s ability to withstand further scrutiny during the confirmation process. A combat veteran and former Fox News personality, Hegseth would require the backing of Senate Republicans to secure the role.

When contacted for comments regarding these developments, neither Trump’s transition team nor DeSantis’ office responded immediately.

This potential shift comes after two of Trump’s other nominees for senior positions have already withdrawn. Chad Chronister pulled out of consideration for heading the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Tuesday. His decision followed that of former Representative Matt Gaetz, who dropped out of the running for attorney general amid allegations involving inappropriate conduct with an underage girl.

Ron DeSantis, who previously competed against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, had initially been on the list of candidates for defense secretary. However, Trump ultimately chose Hegseth at the time, as noted by The Wall Street Journal.

DeSantis has military experience, having served in the Navy’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps between 2004 and 2010. Despite the current discussions, the Journal indicated that Trump could still opt for another replacement should Hegseth’s nomination fail to proceed.

This ongoing reshuffle highlights the complexities of Trump’s transition team as they navigate Senate confirmations and public scrutiny for key appointments.

Trump Allies Musk and Ramaswamy Signal Interest in Abolishing Daylight Saving Time

After securing a second term, Donald Trump has named Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to spearhead his administration’s push for government efficiency. Their mission involves slashing federal regulations and reducing the size of the federal workforce. While it’s unclear how voters will respond to this agenda, Musk and Ramaswamy recently focused on an issue that many Americans may support: ending daylight saving time.

Last week, Musk engaged with a poll posted by a user on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). The poll asked whether daylight saving time should be abolished, and the overwhelming majority of respondents voted in favor of doing so. Reacting to the results, Musk remarked, “Looks like the people want to abolish the annoying time changes!”

Ramaswamy soon joined the conversation, echoing Musk’s sentiment. “It’s inefficient & easy to change,” he said in response to Musk’s comment. Musk’s statement also caught the attention of Utah Senator Mike Lee, who directly asked the Tesla CEO if he supported ending the “semi-annual time changes.” Musk replied with a simple “Yes.”

Despite their comments, neither Musk nor Ramaswamy elaborated on concrete plans to tackle the issue. The Department of Government Efficiency, which they are set to lead, is merely an advisory body. It lacks the authority to create or implement policies, meaning any influence they wield will come in the form of recommendations. Nevertheless, having two influential figures in Trump’s inner circle voicing support for the idea could reignite discussions on the matter.

Congress has explored the possibility of making daylight saving time permanent several times. Since 2018, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has championed the “Sunshine Protection Act,” a legislative effort aimed at ending the biannual time changes. For years, the bill saw little progress in Congress, remaining stuck in committee. However, in 2022, the U.S. Senate unexpectedly passed the bill, a significant step forward. Yet, the legislation stalled in the House of Representatives, leaving its future uncertain. With Rubio now poised to join Trump’s administration as secretary of state, the bill’s fate remains unclear.

If Musk and Ramaswamy choose to advocate for this change seriously, they could find an ally in Trump himself. During his first term, Trump expressed openness to making daylight saving time permanent. In a 2019 social media post, he stated, “Making Daylight Saving Time permanent is O.K. with me!”

The push to establish permanent daylight saving time is not without support. A 2022 poll conducted by Monmouth University revealed that only 35 percent of Americans favored continuing the practice of changing clocks twice a year. Historically, the nation briefly experimented with permanent daylight saving time during the 1970s as a response to the energy crisis. However, the shift, initially intended to last for two years, faced significant public backlash and was eventually reversed.

Musk and Ramaswamy’s involvement could lend momentum to an issue that has struggled to gain widespread legislative traction. While their ability to directly influence policy is limited, their prominence within Trump’s administration could amplify the conversation around daylight saving time and its future in the United States.

Donald Trump Appoints Kash Patel as FBI Director, Highlighting Loyalty and Vision for Reform

Donald Trump, the US President-elect, announced on Sunday that Indian-American Kashyap “Kash” Patel would lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This decision makes Patel the second Indian-American chosen for a key position in Trump’s incoming administration.

Trump took to Truth Social to express his confidence in Patel, stating, “I am proud to announce that Kashyap ‘Kash’ Patel will serve as the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People.”

Trump emphasized Patel’s extensive contributions to his administration, calling him an integral figure in combating corruption and upholding justice. He praised Patel’s efforts during Trump’s first term, citing his roles as Chief of Staff at the Department of Defense, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. “He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump added.

The President-elect further highlighted Patel’s legal expertise, mentioning that he had tried over 60 jury trials. “This FBI will end the growing crime epidemic in America, dismantle the migrant criminal gangs, and stop the evil scourge of human and drug trafficking across the Border,” Trump wrote. He also pointed out that Patel would report to Attorney General Pam Bondi, working collaboratively to restore the FBI’s core values of fidelity, bravery, and integrity.

A Glimpse into Kash Patel’s Career

Kashyap Patel has a long and varied career in government and legal service. He briefly worked in the Justice Department during the Obama administration before transitioning to prominent roles under Trump. After Trump assumed office, Patel became senior counsel to former Representative Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, who led the House Intelligence Committee from 2017 to 2018. During this time, Patel assisted in the committee’s contentious investigation into the FBI’s handling of its Russia inquiry.

In 2018, Patel transitioned to serve as Trump’s senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council. His responsibilities expanded further when he became a senior adviser to the directors of national intelligence. By the end of Trump’s presidency, Patel had been promoted to Chief of Staff for acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller.

Throughout his career, Patel has been recognized for his loyalty to Trump and his dedication to the “America First” agenda. His role in exposing what Trump and his allies called the “Russia Hoax” solidified his reputation as a staunch defender of the administration’s priorities.

Controversies Surrounding Kash Patel

Despite his accomplishments, Patel’s career has not been without controversy. His direct and often provocative approach has drawn criticism from some quarters. Patel has openly discussed pursuing Trump’s political opponents within the government and the media. In his book, he argued, “[T]he FBI has become so thoroughly compromised that it will remain a threat to the people unless drastic measures are taken.”

Such statements have fueled debates about Patel’s potential leadership style and the implications for the FBI. During a past interview, Patel sparked further controversy by encouraging aggressive actions against politicians and journalists perceived as adversaries of Trump. His remark to “come after” these individuals raised concerns about partisanship and the balance of power within national security frameworks.

A Polarizing Figure in National Security

Patel’s sharp critiques of the FBI and his strong advocacy for reform have endeared him to Trump’s supporters, while his detractors view his rhetoric as overly combative. His rapid rise within Trump’s administration demonstrates the trust and value Trump places on Patel’s loyalty and expertise. However, his critics argue that his statements and actions could deepen divisions within an already polarized political and security environment.

Despite the controversies, Patel remains a central figure in Trump’s vision for the FBI’s future. His appointment signifies a commitment to reshaping the agency in line with Trump’s goals of accountability and justice. As Trump stated, “Kash will work under our great Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to bring back Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity to the FBI.”

Patel’s supporters believe his leadership could restore public trust in the FBI and address concerns about crime, border security, and internal accountability. His critics, however, question whether his approach will prioritize impartiality and uphold the agency’s long-standing commitment to nonpartisanship.

As Patel assumes the role of FBI Director, his tenure will likely be closely scrutinized by supporters and critics alike. With the weight of expectations and the challenges facing the bureau, his leadership will play a pivotal role in shaping the FBI’s path forward.

New York City Faces Criticism for Renting Pakistani-Owned Hotel for Migrants

The City of New York is reportedly paying $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, a property owned by the Government of Pakistan, to house illegal immigrants. This claim, revealed on Saturday, has sparked significant backlash and raised questions about the allocation of taxpayer funds.

Republican politician Vivek Ramaswamy called the arrangement “nuts” in a social media post, expressing frustration over the deal. “A taxpayer-funded hotel for illegal migrants is owned by the Pakistani government, which means NYC taxpayers are effectively paying a foreign government to house illegals in our own country. This is nuts,” he stated. His comments highlighted the unusual nature of the agreement, which involves a foreign government benefitting from American taxpayer money.

The post was accompanied by a link to further details, amplifying public discourse on the issue. Ramaswamy’s reaction came after author John LeFevre disclosed the arrangement on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

LeFevre stated that New York City is spending $220 million to rent the Roosevelt Hotel, located in Manhattan, entirely for the purpose of accommodating illegal immigrants. The 19-story building, which houses over 1,200 rooms, had been shuttered since 2020 due to low occupancy and a need for significant renovation. According to LeFevre, the hotel was reopened under this rental agreement as part of a broader financial arrangement tied to international assistance for Pakistan.

“The hotel is owned by the government of Pakistan, and the deal was part of a $1.1 billion IMF bailout package to help Pakistan avoid defaulting on their international debt,” LeFevre explained. The Roosevelt Hotel is under the ownership of Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), a state-run airline controlled by the Pakistani government.

This financial arrangement has drawn scrutiny not only for the use of taxpayer money but also for its implications in the context of international finance and diplomacy. The Roosevelt Hotel, named after former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, had faced years of declining business before its closure and subsequent reopening under this agreement.

In his critique, Ramaswamy, who is working alongside Tesla CEO Elon Musk on a newly created Department of Government Efficiency under the direction of President-elect Donald Trump, emphasized the need to eliminate wasteful government expenditures. The department has been tasked with improving overall government efficiency and scrutinizing spending practices.

Ramaswamy’s reaction underscores the broader concerns about fiscal responsibility and the ethics of using public funds in this manner. The agreement not only underscores issues of mismanagement but also places a spotlight on the relationship between local government spending and foreign entities.

While the city’s arrangement to rent the hotel appears to address the urgent need for housing illegal immigrants, critics argue that alternative solutions could have been pursued that did not involve a property owned by a foreign government. The deal’s connection to Pakistan’s efforts to stabilize its economy through an International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout further complicates the matter.

Before its closure, the Roosevelt Hotel was already struggling with low occupancy rates and was deemed to require substantial renovations. The current use of the hotel as a migrant shelter represents a stark transformation from its historical role as a luxury property named after an American president.

The financial dynamics of the deal and its implications for international relations have added fuel to ongoing debates about the handling of immigration and public resources. For New York City, which is facing a housing crisis and a growing number of migrants, the deal represents a significant expenditure that has polarized opinions.

Critics like Ramaswamy and LeFevre argue that the agreement highlights broader systemic issues. By involving a foreign-owned property in this capacity, the deal raises questions about oversight, priorities, and the potential for unintended consequences in international diplomacy.

This controversy arrives at a time when immigration remains a contentious topic in the U.S., and local governments are under pressure to manage increasing numbers of migrants. As the debate unfolds, the arrangement with the Roosevelt Hotel is likely to remain a focal point for critics of government inefficiency and proponents of fiscal accountability.

In response to the revelations, many are calling for greater transparency and a reevaluation of the policies and agreements that led to this situation. Whether the deal represents an innovative solution to a pressing problem or a misstep in fiscal planning will continue to be a matter of public and political debate.

Trump to Nominate Kash Patel as FBI Head, Sparking Controversy

President-elect Donald Trump has announced plans to nominate Kash Patel as the next director of the FBI, elevating a loyal ally and a figure known for his contentious role in Trump’s first administration. Patel’s potential appointment has drawn criticism and sparked debate, with some questioning his suitability for the position.

Patel has been an outspoken critic of the Justice Department and the FBI, advocating for mass firings within these institutions. He has also called for revoking the security clearances of individuals involved in investigations into Trump’s 2016 campaign. Patel has frequently accused a so-called “deep state” of obstructing Trump’s presidency during his first term.

“Kash is a brilliant lawyer, investigator, and ‘America First’ fighter who has spent his career exposing corruption, defending Justice, and protecting the American People. He played a pivotal role in uncovering the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, standing as an advocate for truth, accountability, and the Constitution,” Trump stated on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday.

This announcement also signals Trump’s intention to remove current FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom he appointed in 2017. Wray’s term is slated to run until 2027.

In response to the announcement, the FBI refrained from commenting on Patel’s potential nomination. Instead, the agency released a statement emphasizing its ongoing mission. “Every day, the men and women of the FBI continue to work to protect Americans from a growing array of threats. Director Wray’s focus remains on the men and women of the FBI, the people we do the work with, and the people we do the work for,” the FBI said.

However, Patel’s controversial past could pose challenges for his Senate confirmation.

Patel’s career trajectory began as a public defender before transitioning to a role as a national security prosecutor at the Department of Justice during the Obama administration. He later joined the political arena as a staffer for Representative Devin Nunes, advising the House Intelligence Committee.

During his tenure with Nunes, Patel played a central role in efforts to discredit the Democratic-led investigation into Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. He authored a report scrutinizing the FBI and DOJ’s handling of their investigations into Russian election interference, bolstering Trump’s narrative.

Patel’s close alignment with Trump continued throughout his career. He transitioned from Capitol Hill to the White House, serving as a senior director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council. Later, he moved to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Patel was often perceived as a staunch Trump loyalist. At one point, he was reportedly considered for the role of deputy to then-CIA Director Gina Haspel, a move Haspel allegedly opposed by threatening to resign, according to Axios.

In late 2020, Patel was assigned to the Department of Defense, where NBC News reported he obstructed collaboration with the incoming Biden administration. He allegedly sought to restrict staff from sharing information with the transition team.

On January 6, Patel was serving as chief of staff to then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller. Miller had been appointed following Trump’s dismissal of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Patel’s brief tenure at the Pentagon drew scrutiny from the now-disbanded January 6 committee, which summoned him for an interview. The committee suggested he might possess “additional documents and information relevant to understanding the role played by the Department of Defense and the White House in preparing for and responding to the attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as documents and information related to [his] personal involvement in planning for events on Jan. 6 and the peaceful transfer of power.” Patel has denied any misconduct related to the Capitol attack.

Patel also figured prominently in another legal controversy involving Trump: the mishandling of classified documents at Trump’s Florida residence. Patel claimed he witnessed Trump issuing verbal orders to declassify some of the materials found, a statement that aligns with a defense floated by Trump’s legal team but never substantiated.

In addition to his political and legal activities, Patel is the author of a children’s book, “The Plot Against the King.” The book aims to recount what it describes as “one of our nation’s biggest injustices,” presenting a satirical take on the Russia investigation. Patel portrays himself as a wizard in the narrative, while Trump is depicted as a king under siege by characters such as “Hillary Queenton” and others representing prominent political figures.

Patel remains a significant figure in Trump’s orbit, currently serving on the board of the company overseeing Trump’s social media platform.

As recently as this month, Patel has echoed Trump’s assertions of a “deep state” working against him. In a newsletter from his foundation, Patel wrote, “The Deep State cannot be trusted. They have weaponized the government for their own political and personal agenda.” He also referred to the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties as a “fraud.”

Patel’s potential appointment has drawn criticism, including from former members of the FBI. Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s former deputy director, expressed concerns about Patel’s leadership.

“No part of the FBI’s mission is safe with Kash Patel in any position of leadership in the FBI, and certainly not in the deputy director’s job,” McCabe told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “The scope of authority is enormous.”

The nomination of Patel as FBI director underscores Trump’s preference for loyalists in key positions and his ongoing disputes with federal institutions. However, Patel’s controversial past and polarizing reputation could lead to significant resistance during the confirmation process.

Tulsi Gabbard’s DNI Nomination Sparks Controversy Amid Concerns Over Past Statements and Associations

Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s selection as the next US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) by President-elect Donald Trump has reignited debates over her controversial political stances. Gabbard’s 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and her remarks on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny as she prepares for a role that would make her responsible for 18 intelligence agencies and serve as a principal adviser to the president.

If confirmed, Gabbard would oversee some of America’s most sensitive secrets, a responsibility that has raised concerns among former national security officials and lawmakers. Critics argue that her past actions and comments could damage trust and collaboration within the intelligence community and with foreign allies.

Retired diplomat Lewis Lukens, who previously served as deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, voiced apprehensions about Gabbard’s judgment, suggesting it could undermine intelligence-sharing relationships. “Her dubious judgment could give allies reason to question how safe it is to share intelligence with the US,” Lukens told the BBC.

Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve with deployments to Iraq and Kuwait, has dismissed such concerns, calling her detractors “warmongers” seeking to discredit anyone challenging Washington’s foreign policy orthodoxy. Trump defended his decision, praising Gabbard’s “fearless spirit” and commitment to public service, which he claimed would benefit the intelligence community.

Yet, Gabbard’s appointment has drawn praise from Russian state media, adding fuel to the controversy. Olga Skabeyeva, a prominent Russian talk show host, highlighted Gabbard’s criticism of US actions in Ukraine and her meeting with Assad as examples of her alignment with Russian perspectives. “Virtually from the first days of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine, she explained its reasons,” Skabeyeva said.

Gabbard’s political career has been marked by a mix of anti-war rhetoric and skepticism toward US intelligence operations, earning her both admiration and criticism across party lines. However, her decision to visit Assad in 2017 during a “fact-finding” mission as a congresswoman stirred widespread outrage. Her subsequent doubts over US intelligence assessments that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians exacerbated the backlash.

After a 2017 chemical attack in Syria killed over 80 people, the Trump administration launched airstrikes on a Syrian airbase, an action Gabbard labeled “reckless and short-sighted.” She argued that such moves risked escalating the Syrian conflict and hindering investigations into the attack. US intelligence and a UN panel later concluded that Assad’s government was responsible for the sarin gas attack. However, both Assad and Russia denied the allegations, claiming the airstrike hit a rebel-held depot containing chemical munitions.

These events loomed over Gabbard’s unsuccessful 2019 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Defending her stance, she asserted that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States because Syria does not pose a direct threat.”

Her statements regarding Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine further fueled controversy. Gabbard suggested the war could have been avoided if the US and NATO had acknowledged Russia’s security concerns over Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. Additionally, she claimed that US-funded biolabs in Ukraine might be compromised, leading to the release of dangerous pathogens. This statement aligned with Russia’s unfounded allegations that the US was aiding Ukraine in developing biological weapons, drawing sharp criticism from figures like Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who accused Gabbard of spreading “treasonous lies.” In response, Gabbard sent Romney a cease-and-desist letter.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Gabbard accused Vice President Kamala Harris of being the “main instigator” of the Ukraine conflict, citing Harris’ support for NATO’s expansion. Trump’s former UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, who opposed him in the Republican primary, recently declared that Gabbard’s views made her unsuitable for a high-level intelligence role. “This is not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathiser,” Haley stated.

Some officials worry Gabbard’s appointment could jeopardize the trust between the US and its allies. A former senior White House official expressed concern that her differing views on figures like Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin might disrupt intelligence diplomacy. “It certainly will raise real questions in the minds of foreign counterparts,” the official told the BBC. A former NATO official echoed this sentiment, questioning why someone with “wacky views” and no relevant background would be entrusted with such a critical position.

However, not all foreign allies expect drastic changes. Duncan Lewis, former head of Australia’s domestic spy agency, emphasized the strength of the US-Australian alliance, saying, “Our bilateral security relationship is strong and long-standing, and I expect that to continue.”

The nomination process for DNI is expected to be contentious. The DNI shapes the president’s daily intelligence briefing, giving them significant influence over national security priorities. Some senators have expressed reservations about Gabbard’s suitability. Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and former CIA officer, noted that Gabbard’s past statements appear to favor adversarial positions. “Certainly, it gave me pause when I heard the nomination,” Slotkin said.

Senator James Lankford, a Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated that Gabbard would face tough questions about her history, including the Assad meeting. Conversely, Republican Senator Eric Schmitt criticized accusations from Democrats that Gabbard was “compromised,” calling such claims “totally ridiculous” and baseless. Senator Markwayne Mullin, also a Republican, described Gabbard as a “solid choice” and encouraged skeptics to engage with her directly. “What I’ve been telling everybody is just sit down and talk to her,” Mullin said.

Gabbard’s nomination highlights the broader divisions within US politics over foreign policy and the role of intelligence. Her anti-establishment views and unconventional approach may appeal to Trump’s base, but they also raise significant concerns about her ability to foster trust and cooperation within the intelligence community and with global allies. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a heated confirmation process, Gabbard’s past actions and statements will undoubtedly remain under the microscope.

Kamala Harris Urges Unity and Resilience in Post-Election Address

In her first major speech to fundraisers and supporters following the November 5 electoral defeat, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a passionate call for unity and perseverance in the face of political challenges. Addressing a private gathering, Harris reaffirmed her dedication to safeguarding core American values and urged her audience to remain steadfast in their pursuit of progress.

“The promise of America will only be achieved if we stay in the fight,” Harris proclaimed, emphasizing the need for collective determination and action to uphold key principles. Her speech was a rallying cry to continue the struggle for democracy, justice, and individual freedoms.

Harris did not shy away from the tough road ahead, speaking openly about the hurdles that lie in the path of advancing fundamental ideals. “We’re gonna continue fighting for the rights of women to make decisions about their own body,” she declared. “We’re gonna continue fighting for our democracy, for equal justice.”

Acknowledging the anxiety and uncertainty gripping many Americans in the current political climate, Harris sought to inspire confidence and underscore the power of individual and collective action. “We are not powerless,” she assured her audience. “Hard work is good work. Hard work can be joyful work. And we must remain intentional, continuing to build community and coalitions.”

Her speech outlined a clear focus on key priorities, including reproductive rights, the preservation of democracy, and the pursuit of equal justice under the law. These issues, she asserted, are fundamental to the nation’s identity and its future.

“We’re going to continue fighting for the right of women to make decisions about their own body,” Harris reiterated, doubling down on her commitment to reproductive freedoms. “We’re going to continue fighting for our democracy, for the rule of law, for equal justice.”

Asserting the importance of unity, Harris called for an approach that emphasizes shared goals over division. “I’m continuing to build community, to build coalitions,” she said, expressing her belief in the common bonds that unite Americans. “We have so much more in common than what separates us as the American people, and we must continue to organize and mobilize and stay engaged.”

Delivered with conviction and optimism, Harris’s address served as a rallying point for her supporters and reaffirmed her commitment to advancing progressive values. By calling on her audience to remain engaged and proactive, Harris sought to reinvigorate her base and encourage collective action toward achieving shared goals.

Special Counsel Drops Federal Cases Against Trump as President-Elect Gains Immunity

Special counsel Jack Smith has formally moved to dismiss the federal election subversion and classified documents mishandling cases against President-elect Donald Trump. In court filings on Monday, Smith requested the cases’ dismissal, marking a significant development in the legal battles surrounding Trump.

Trump, who had openly declared his intention to dismiss Smith upon resuming office, has continued to break with longstanding norms regarding special counsel investigations.

“The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote regarding the election subversion case in a six-page filing to US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. He emphasized, “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Judge Chutkan dismissed the case without prejudice on Monday afternoon, allowing for the possibility of future prosecution.

Smith’s investigations into Trump for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and mishandling classified documents were unprecedented, marking the first time a former U.S. president faced federal criminal charges. Despite the cases’ historic nature, the election subversion trial faced delays that prevented it from proceeding before the November election.

Smith charged Trump in Washington, DC, for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a campaign that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Regarding the dismissal, Smith clarified, “The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed.”

Prosecutors recently argued that a landmark Supreme Court ruling granting Trump partial presidential immunity should not affect the case. Judge Chutkan had been assessing how much of Trump’s conduct was protected by immunity when Smith filed the motion for dismissal.

In a related case in Florida, Trump faced charges for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House and resisting efforts by the government to recover them. Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Reacting to the dismissal, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung hailed it as “a major victory for the rule of law.” He added, “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

Appeal Continues Against Trump Employees

While the charges against Trump have been dropped, Smith indicated in a filing with a federal appeals court that the prosecution of two of Trump’s employees, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, would continue.

Nauta and de Oliveira are accused of assisting Trump in obstructing a federal investigation into classified documents taken from the White House. Both employees have pleaded not guilty, and their case is now before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s earlier dismissal of all charges.

John Irving, a defense attorney for de Oliveira, criticized the decision to continue the case against his client. “The special counsel’s decision to proceed in this case, even after dismissing it against President Trump, is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place,” Irving said. He further argued, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

Stanley Woodward, Nauta’s lawyer, did not respond to requests for comment.

Temporary Immunity for President-Elect

Smith has emphasized that the dismissal of charges against Trump is “without prejudice,” preserving the option for future prosecution once Trump no longer enjoys presidential immunity. He described the immunity granted to a sitting president as “temporary.”

Smith revealed that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel had determined that prosecuting a sitting president is categorically barred, even for charges filed before they assume office.

“Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote. He added, “Although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice.”

Judge Chutkan acknowledged the unusual nature of the situation in her ruling. She stated, “Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office.”

State Prosecutions Persist

Trump’s presidential immunity does not extend to prosecutions brought by state authorities, meaning cases in Georgia and New York will continue. However, these cases may still face complications as courts grapple with questions of immunity and the implications of Trump’s return to the White House.

In New York, Trump faces charges in a criminal hush money case. A jury earlier this year convicted him on 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Trump—a claim he denies. The judge overseeing the case recently postponed Trump’s sentencing indefinitely.

In Georgia, Trump is fighting charges in a sprawling case accusing him and several allies of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

Despite the dismissals at the federal level, these state cases ensure that Trump’s legal challenges are far from over as he prepares to take office again.

Trump’s Potential Return Sparks Concerns Over National Debt and Spending

When Donald Trump last occupied the White House in 2020, the annual cost of servicing the national debt stood at $345 billion. This figure, though substantial, was manageable due to historically low interest rates. At the time, it was feasible to accumulate more debt through tax cuts and pandemic relief measures because the low borrowing costs ensured repayment burdens remained relatively modest, even as overall debt levels rose significantly.

However, the financial landscape has shifted drastically since then. According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the national debt could surpass $1 trillion by next year. This staggering amount is higher than the expected expenditure on national defense and exceeds combined spending on infrastructure, food assistance, and other Congressional programs.

The dramatic rise in debt servicing costs is largely attributed to climbing interest rates. In April 2020, at the height of the government’s pandemic borrowing spree, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes hit a record low of 0.6%. Fast forward to today, and those yields have surged to 4.4%. This increase reflects investors’ anticipation that a Trump administration would implement income tax cuts, potentially adding trillions of dollars to already ballooning deficits.

Democratic President Joe Biden can counter critiques by pointing to robust economic growth and his administration’s success in avoiding a recession, even as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates to combat inflation. Nonetheless, deficits have remained unusually high during his term. This is partly due to Biden’s policies, which include significant investments to boost domestic manufacturing and combat climate change, as well as the residual effects of Trump’s previous tax cuts.

As Trump’s allies and Republican lawmakers prepare for a possible return to power, they are exploring ways to curb government spending to reduce debt and lower interest rates. Criticizing Biden for his handling of deficits and inflation, they aim to set the stage for potential fiscal reforms under Trump’s leadership.

Key figures in Trump’s camp, including wealthy entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, have floated controversial ideas to address government spending. Among their proposals is the refusal to spend funds already approved by Congress, an approach Trump has shown interest in. However, such a move would almost certainly face legal challenges, as it undermines congressional authority over federal expenditures.

Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director during his first term and a likely pick for the role again, has proposed an alternative budget plan. This plan outlines over $11 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, with the ultimate goal of achieving a surplus.

Michael Faulkender, a finance professor and former Treasury Department official under Trump, has advocated for the repeal of all energy and environmental provisions within Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Speaking before a congressional committee in March, Faulkender argued that dismantling these components would significantly reduce deficits.

Additionally, Trump has expressed support for imposing tariffs on imports as a revenue-generating measure to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, some Republican lawmakers, such as House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington of Texas, have suggested implementing work requirements for Medicaid recipients as a cost-cutting strategy.

The current predicament is reminiscent of the early years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, when high interest rates similarly forced the White House to confront the escalating cost of servicing the national debt. Back then, rising yields on 10-year Treasury notes prompted Clinton and Congress to negotiate a deficit reduction agreement, which ultimately led to a budget surplus by 1998.

Reflecting on that era, Clinton political adviser James Carville famously quipped about the power wielded by bond investors in shaping government policy. “I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400 baseball hitter,” Carville said. “But now I would like to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.”

As Trump eyes a return to the Oval Office, the interplay between rising debt, interest rates, and government spending will likely take center stage in the nation’s political discourse. Whether his administration can tackle these challenges while delivering on campaign promises remains to be seen.

Trump Announces New Tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China in First Executive Order

President-elect Donald Trump declared on Monday that he will implement new tariffs on goods imported from Canada, Mexico, and China via an executive order on his first day in office next year.

In a series of posts shared on Truth Social, Trump detailed plans to impose a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian and Mexican imports. Additionally, Chinese imports, already subject to tariffs from his previous term, will face an additional 10 percent tariff. These measures, Trump stated, aim to pressure the three nations to strengthen border security and take decisive action to reduce fentanyl exports to the United States.

“Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem. We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

During his campaign, Trump promised to introduce broad tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on all foreign goods, with tariffs on Chinese imports reaching as high as 60 percent. Canada, Mexico, and China are the United States’ top trading partners, making these proposals significant in the context of international commerce.

The announcement comes shortly after Trump revealed his intention to nominate investor Scott Bessent as his Treasury secretary. Bessent’s role will be pivotal in executing Trump’s trade agenda and maintaining stability in financial markets during the anticipated economic disruptions caused by these new measures.

Trump’s tariff plans have a precedent in his previous presidency, during which he frequently shook financial markets and strained relations with major U.S. trading partners. He previously imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum, including imports from Canada and Mexico, citing national security concerns. This action led to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), resulting in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which aimed to boost U.S. manufacturing and enforce stricter labor compliance.

China, however, bore the brunt of Trump’s trade policies during his first term. Trump implemented tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods in an effort to force Beijing to renegotiate critical aspects of the U.S.-China economic relationship. These actions were part of a broader strategy to address perceived trade imbalances and intellectual property theft, which Trump consistently highlighted as major grievances.

The newly announced tariffs indicate that Trump intends to adopt an even more aggressive stance on trade in his upcoming term. His focus on border security and the opioid crisis, particularly fentanyl, aligns with his broader political messaging, emphasizing national security and economic self-reliance.

With his return to the presidency looming, these tariff proposals are likely to reignite debates over their economic implications and effectiveness in achieving the desired policy outcomes. Critics argue that such tariffs could lead to higher costs for American consumers and businesses, potentially straining the economy. Supporters, however, see them as a necessary step to hold trading partners accountable and prioritize U.S. interests.

As Trump’s trade policies take shape, the impact on international relations and global markets remains to be seen. For now, his proposed tariffs signal a continuation of his confrontational approach to trade, with significant implications for the United States and its trading partners.

Trump Faces Republican Resistance Over Controversial Appointments as Gabbard Sparks Debate

Donald Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate are rallying to defend Tulsi Gabbard, his controversial pick to lead U.S. intelligence services, marking a potential test of both his provocative nominations and the GOP’s willingness to challenge his decisions. Alongside Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Defense, also faces growing scrutiny, intensifying political tensions as the president-elect prepares for his second term.

Concerns Over Gabbard’s Past Statements and Actions

During an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union, Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth questioned Gabbard’s suitability for the intelligence role, citing her controversial 2017 meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and past policy positions. Duckworth alleged, “I think she’s compromised,” adding that some of Gabbard’s remarks align with Russian propaganda. These concerns were echoed by Senator-elect Adam Schiff, who criticized her nomination, describing her as “someone with very questionable judgment and no experience.”

Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin, however, dismissed Duckworth’s remarks as “ridiculous” and “outright dangerous,” calling on her to retract the statements. Mullin defended Gabbard, stating, “If she was compromised, if she wasn’t able to pass a background check, she still wouldn’t be in the Army.”

Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt also came to Gabbard’s defense, condemning the accusations as baseless. “I think it’s really interesting that anybody that has a different political view now is being cast as a Russian asset. It’s totally ridiculous,” he said, emphasizing that such attacks were insulting and unwarranted.

Despite these defenses, questions persist within the GOP. Republican Senator James Lankford acknowledged the controversy surrounding Gabbard’s qualifications, noting, “We will have lots of questions. She met with Bashar al-Assad. We will want to know what the purpose was and what the direction for that was as a member of Congress.”

Hegseth’s Troubles and Trump’s Aggressive Agenda

Meanwhile, Hegseth’s nomination has come under fire due to a 2017 police report alleging sexual assault, which he denies. Though he was not charged, the report has cast uncertainty on his confirmation prospects. Trump’s earlier nominee for attorney general, Matt Gaetz, faced similar scrutiny and ultimately withdrew due to allegations of sexual misconduct, which he also denied.

Trump’s replacement pick for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has been met with a more favorable reception among Republicans. Bondi, a former Florida attorney general, is seen as a staunch supporter of Trump’s agenda, including his claims of election fraud in 2020. Lankford defended her nomination, saying, “You have got to actually be balanced and about justice, not about attacking the president.”

A Push for Radical Government Reform

The president-elect’s selections signal his intention to pursue sweeping changes in government. His pick for the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has been tasked with implementing significant government cuts as part of Trump’s broader reform agenda. Trump has also enlisted Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to spearhead efforts to streamline the federal bureaucracy.

Economic picks like hedge fund manager Scott Bessent for Treasury and Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick for Commerce are aimed at reassuring Wall Street amid Trump’s proposed tariff hikes. While these measures are designed to target foreign trading competitors, critics warn they could lead to higher inflation and hurt American consumers.

Foreign Policy and the Ukraine Conflict

Trump’s vow to end the Ukraine war has emerged as a major foreign policy challenge. Representative Mike Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security adviser, expressed concerns about the ongoing conflict, stating on Fox News, “The president-elect is incredibly concerned about the carnage that is taking place there. How do we restore deterrence and how do we bring peace?” Trump has pledged to resolve the conflict swiftly, but critics fear his approach could legitimize Russia’s invasion by allowing Moscow to retain captured territories.

A Controversial Path Forward

The rapid pace of Trump’s staffing decisions and the ideological leanings of his appointees suggest a tumultuous term ahead. Republican lawmakers, emboldened by their control of both chambers of Congress, believe Trump has a mandate for significant change. However, concerns remain about whether his administration can balance its ambitious agenda with the operational focus required for effective governance.

As the debate over Gabbard’s nomination unfolds, it encapsulates Trump’s fraught relationship with the intelligence community, which he has accused of working against him during his first term. Gabbard’s limited experience in intelligence and her defense of figures like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have fueled criticism. Reports of her inclusion on a Transportation Security Administration watchlist, though unverified, have further raised eyebrows.

Democrats view Gabbard’s nomination as a political vulnerability for Trump, with Duckworth questioning her loyalty: “The US intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with America’s foes. My worry is that she couldn’t pass a background check.”

Defending Gabbard Amid GOP Divisions

Despite the controversy, some Republicans have rallied behind Gabbard. Tennessee Senator Bill Hagerty pointed out that her role would involve implementing Trump’s policies rather than her own. “President Trump will fire people that don’t do their job well,” Hagerty said. Schmitt similarly argued that differing political views should not disqualify Gabbard, calling the accusations against her a “slur.”

However, divisions within the GOP remain evident. Lankford acknowledged the need for a thorough vetting process, emphasizing the importance of understanding Gabbard’s past actions and statements.

Potential Shakeups in Federal Leadership

Bondi’s nomination signals Trump’s intent to overhaul the Justice Department. The president-elect has long accused the FBI and DOJ of targeting him unfairly, particularly in relation to his handling of classified documents and attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Speculation has grown that Trump may replace FBI Director Christopher Wray, potentially appointing loyalists like Kash Patel to senior roles within the bureau.

Patel, a staunch supporter of Trump’s MAGA agenda, has expressed a desire to revisit past investigations, stating on Fox Business, “Put out the documents. Put out the evidence. We only have gotten halfway down the Russiagate hole.” Critics worry such moves could politicize federal law enforcement and undermine public trust in these institutions.

A High-Stakes Transition

As Trump’s second term approaches, his appointments and policy priorities are setting the stage for significant upheaval in Washington. While Republicans believe they have a mandate for bold action, the challenges of governing amid political polarization and internal divisions within the GOP could complicate Trump’s efforts to implement his ambitious agenda.

Whether Gabbard’s nomination will withstand scrutiny remains uncertain, but the debate underscores the broader tensions surrounding Trump’s leadership and the direction of his presidency.

Donald Trump Secures Narrow Yet Historic Win in 2024 Presidential Election

Donald Trump achieved a significant milestone by winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election. This victory marks Trump as only the second Republican to secure the popular vote since 1988. The majority of counties in the U.S. saw their voting margins shift toward Trump, reflecting gains in both Republican-stronghold regions and traditionally Democratic areas.

Despite this accomplishment, Trump’s margins were relatively modest, especially by historical standards. Over the past 25 years, U.S. presidential elections have often been tightly contested, as seen in the 2000 Florida recount election and Trump’s own races in 2016 and 2020.

Adding to the complexity of his victory, Trump’s success did not translate into substantial gains for down-ballot Republicans. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives remains slim, and Democrats managed to win four Senate races in key battleground states, even as Vice President Kamala Harris lost those states to Trump.

During his election night celebration, Trump confidently declared, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

However, Wayne Steger, a political scientist at DePaul University, interpreted the results differently, describing the election as sending “mixed signals.” According to Steger, a combination of factors such as inflation, immigration, identity politics, crime, education, and a growing conservative sentiment favored the Republican candidate. Still, he characterized the outcome as a “close election in which there was enough anti-Democratic sentiment to carry the day.”

Trump’s Victory in Context

Trump’s performance in the 2024 election has several notable aspects. He managed to secure wins in all seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Harris, in comparison, performed worse in these states than President Joe Biden did in 2020.

Trump’s margin of victory in these battleground states was significantly larger than the margins seen in close elections over the past two decades. For example, his combined margin in these seven states was approximately 760,000 votes. In contrast, the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore produced a collective margin of just 46,000 votes across the seven closest states—a figure about one-sixteenth of Trump’s margin in 2024.

Historical comparisons further underscore Trump’s achievement. Since 1932, only six candidates from the party out of power have garnered as large a share of the vote as Trump’s near 50%. These figures include political heavyweights such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Barack Obama in 2008, and Biden in 2020.

In the Electoral College, Trump secured 312 votes out of 538. While this figure falls short of the landslide victories achieved by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Richard Nixon in 1972, or Reagan in 1984, it surpasses four of the seven elections held this century, including Biden’s win in 2020.

The Narrowness of Trump’s Victory

Despite his notable successes, other metrics highlight the narrow nature of Trump’s win. In terms of both percentage and raw vote counts, Trump’s margin of victory ranks as one of the slimmest in recent history.

As of November 20, Trump’s lead over Harris was 1.62%—a smaller margin than any winner since Bush in 2000, who prevailed with just a 0.51% lead. In the broader historical context, only John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Nixon in 1968 had smaller popular vote margins, at 0.17% and 0.7%, respectively.

In terms of raw votes, Trump’s margin of approximately 2.5 million is the fifth smallest since 1960. This figure is less than half of Biden’s margin in the 2020 election.

Moreover, Trump’s strong showing at the top of the ticket did not result in widespread Republican success down-ballot. In the seven battleground states, five held Senate races and one held a gubernatorial contest. While Republicans won Pennsylvania’s Senate race, Democrats triumphed in the Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, as well as in North Carolina’s gubernatorial race.

In North Carolina, Democrats also secured wins in elections for lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, and superintendent of public instruction. They were also narrowly leading in a state Supreme Court race.

The U.S. House of Representatives is poised to retain a narrow Republican margin, similar to the previous two years. In state legislatures, Republicans made only modest gains in chamber control, while Democrats managed to make inroads in other areas.

Barry Burden, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, described Trump’s victory as “solid and convincing.” However, he noted, “the 2024 elections were not a general endorsement of the Republican Party. Many Republicans down ballot did not perform as well as Trump.”

Implications for Future Elections

The 2024 election continues a broader pattern of close contests and fluctuating political control. Since 2000, the presidency, Senate, or House has changed hands 16 times across 13 election cycles.

This trend suggests that Democrats may be well-positioned for the 2026 midterms and potentially the 2028 presidential race. Claremont McKenna College political scientist Jack Pitney emphasized the electorate’s dissatisfaction with the state of the country, remarking, “Unless Trump creates an abrupt change in the national mood, Democrats have a good chance at a successful 2026 midterm.”

Trump’s 2024 victory represents a blend of significant achievements and historical narrowness. His success in battleground states and his strong showing against an incumbent party underscore his electoral strength, but the modest margins and lack of a down-ballot boost highlight the complexities of his win. As the U.S. political landscape remains deeply divided, the coming years will test the durability of Trump’s mandate and the Republicans’ ability to consolidate their gains.

New Dawn For Thanksgiving

“May your Thanksgiving be filled with blessings, warmth, and joy.” Wishing you all bountiful Thanksgiving, a happy holiday season, and a healthy New Year.
Meticulously, we need to be thankful for all the blessings we acquired, both in personal and social life, indeed.
“It’s dawn again in America” ​​was part of the slogan, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan’s 1984 presidential campaign displayed. The slogan may have been even more relevant this year, as the Republican Party won the presidential election and won a majority in the Senate.
“Thanksgiving” is an expression of gratitude and deep appreciation for the good things in life. Gratitude is a small word, but its scope, breadth, and depth are indescribable. Although we can express our gratitude to each other without any price, it is human nature to forget to express our gratitude. Thanksgiving is a wonderful time of the year when we gather with friends and family over turkey, stuffing, and other delicious home-cooked meals. It’s a great opportunity to remember with gratitude the most inspiring holiday in our lives. Americans celebrate Thanksgiving Day on the last Thursday of November every year.
This year, Thanksgiving Day will be a grand celebration, coming right after the presidential election. The media has assessed that the American people have brought Donald Trump and the Republican Party to power with a huge majority, realizing that the failed four-year administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has pushed the United States into a difficult situation of inflation. Political leaders of the world have recognized that the massive and decisive victory achieved by voting for obvious reasons such as millions of illegal immigrants, rising prices, and increasing crime is a victory for the American people.
In the Holy Bible, as per Chronicle 16:34  “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his love endures forever.”.
“He showed us extraordinary kindness. Let us not grow weary in doing good (Galatians 6:9),” Christian political thinkers have also come forward, citing many of the biblical verses. Let us hope that Trump and his followers will understand the will of the people and try to move forward by doing good, rather than wasting time on unnecessary talks and accusations of the past. Let us continue our work for the good of our country and the purpose of expressing gratitude to God. A slight feeling is on the horizon that we are starting to see changes!
Change was inevitable, and we brought it- let us be thankful.

Trump Secures Victory in 2024 as America Swings Right

The nation witnessed a significant shift to the right in the 2024 presidential election compared to the 2020 race. Four years ago, President Joe Biden secured six out of seven critical battleground states, but this time, all those states moved toward President-elect Donald Trump. Furthermore, Trump is on course to win the popular vote, a stark contrast to Biden’s 7-million-vote lead in 2020.

Trump Dominates the Suburbs

Suburban areas played a decisive role in the election outcome. According to exit polls, over half of the voters in 2024 resided in suburban regions, making these areas pivotal swing zones in both the presidential race and closely contested House districts. Historically, the suburban victor has won 11 of the past 12 presidential elections, dating back to 1980. This year, Trump emerged victorious in the suburbs, securing 51% of the vote compared to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 47%.

Harris had hoped to mobilize suburban women in key swing states to her advantage. However, the anticipated support did not materialize. Exit polls revealed that Trump won white suburban women by a margin of seven points and white suburban men by a significant 27 points. While some suburban households had split votes, it wasn’t enough to propel Harris to victory.

In several swing states, Trump’s gains in suburban areas were substantial, based on near-final vote counts. The Philadelphia suburbs and two major counties near Detroit saw a net swing of nearly 60,000 votes in Trump’s favor. Similarly, in Wisconsin’s “WOW” counties—Waukesha, Ozaukee, and Washington—Trump gained over 10,000 votes. Georgia’s suburban counties near Atlanta also leaned toward Trump, contributing to his overall success.

Interestingly, in certain Atlanta metro counties, Harris outperformed Biden’s 2020 numbers, and her losses in the Charlotte metro area were not as severe as in the industrial Midwest. These trends offer Democrats a glimmer of hope for the Sun Belt’s future, even as the Midwest becomes increasingly challenging terrain.

Rural Areas Deepen Their Support for Trump

Rural America, long a Republican stronghold, turned out in record numbers for Trump. In 2024, he won 64% of the rural vote, the highest margin for any candidate since 1980. This performance surpassed even Trump’s previous high of 61% in 2016.

Trump’s dominance in rural regions helped him secure wins in key battlegrounds and bolster his popular vote tally in traditionally red states like Texas. In Texas alone, Trump gained a net of over 900,000 votes compared to 2020, and in Florida, his lead expanded by more than 1 million votes.

These gains were partly driven by Trump’s significant inroads with Latino voters, particularly in South Florida and South Texas. The shift among Latino communities further solidified his position in these critical states.

Harris Falls Short in Urban Centers

Urban areas, typically Democratic strongholds, presented challenges for Harris. While large cities remain central to Democratic success in swing states, Harris secured just 59% of the urban vote. This figure lagged behind the performances of Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton in previous elections.

This underperformance contributed significantly to Harris’s defeats in key states. For instance, in Maricopa County, Arizona, which encompasses Phoenix, Harris received approximately 61,000 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020. In contrast, Trump gained about 56,000 votes, resulting in a 117,000-vote swing in a single county.

A similar trend was observed in Wayne County, Michigan, home to Detroit. Harris’s support fell by more than 60,000 votes, while Trump gained roughly 24,000. Wayne County is home to a significant Black voter base, as well as the nation’s largest Arab American population in Dearborn, which numbers around 100,000. Many Arab American voters expressed dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s stance on the Gaza conflict, a factor that may have impacted Harris’s performance in the region.

The story was much the same in other major urban centers across swing states, including Las Vegas and Philadelphia. Even in traditionally blue states, Harris struggled to match Biden’s 2020 numbers. In New York, for example, Harris’s vote total declined by more than 800,000 compared to Biden’s performance four years earlier.

A Broader Electoral Landscape

The 2024 election results highlighted stark regional and demographic divides in American politics. Trump’s ability to consolidate support in rural areas and among suburban voters proved decisive, while Harris’s challenges in urban centers and among key demographic groups weakened her chances of victory.

These shifts suggest a changing political landscape, with Republicans making gains in areas where Democrats traditionally performed well, and Democrats focusing on emerging opportunities in the Sun Belt. As America moves forward, both parties will likely analyze these trends to shape their strategies for future elections.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Controversial Nomination for Director of National Intelligence Raises Concerns

Donald Trump’s announcement of Tulsi Gabbard as his nominee for director of national intelligence has sparked intense debate, with critics from both major political parties voicing objections. Gabbard’s connections to a politically active Hindu organization, the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF), and her past political affiliations are under scrutiny.

John Bolton, former national security advisor, called her nomination “one of the nation’s worst,” while Democratic leaders have labeled her a “Russian asset” and a “national security threat.” The Daily Beast ran a report on November 14 titled, “Tulsi Gabbard’s Ties to ‘Cult’ Could Cost Her Intel Job,” which highlighted her lifelong association with SIF. The foundation is a Hawaii-based offshoot of the Krishna Consciousness movement, founded in the U.S. and popularized by Beatle George Harrison.

A Shifting Political Journey

Gabbard’s political career began in 2002 when she was elected to Hawaii’s state house at the age of 21, making her the youngest woman to hold such a position in the U.S. state legislature. In 2013, she made history as the first practicing Hindu elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. She garnered national attention in 2016 by endorsing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton and later ran for president in 2020.

Her political evolution has been striking. Gabbard left the Democratic Party in 2022 to become an independent, later endorsing Donald Trump, aligning with the Republican Party, and actively campaigning for Trump this year.

Connections to the Science of Identity Foundation

Gabbard’s ties to SIF, founded in 1977 by Chris Butler (known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa), have been reported extensively over the years, including in 2017, 2019, and again this year by Honolulu’s *Civil Beat*. Gabbard attended an SIF boarding school and met both of her husbands through the organization.

The foundation traces its roots to Butler’s early discipleship under AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) in 1966. ISKCON became widely recognized for its public chanting of “Hare Krishna” and fundraising campaigns but also faced allegations of cult-like practices, such as strict obedience and isolation from the outside world. Disagreements between Butler and Prabhupada led Butler to break away and establish SIF, introducing a more politicized form of Hinduism that included relaxed traditions, such as allowing devotees to forgo shaving their heads.

Butler’s influence extended into politics, with the establishment of the Independents for Godly Government, a political party that promoted conservative candidates in Hawaii. Gabbard’s parents were also prominent within SIF, founding groups such as Stop Promoting Homosexuality in 1991 and the Alliance for Traditional Marriage in 1995. The latter supported an anti-same-sex marriage amendment, which passed in Hawaii in 1998. Gabbard, as a teenager, appeared in a campaign ad for the amendment but later cited her military service as a catalyst for her changed views on LGBTQ+ rights.

International Ties and Allegations of Religious Bias

Questions have also been raised about Gabbard’s connections to Hindu nationalist groups in India that support Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Critics allege these groups promote persecution of Muslims and Christians. India’s ambassador to the U.S. attended Gabbard’s second wedding in 2015, and she traveled to India at Modi’s personal invitation. When questioned about these ties, Gabbard has dismissed the criticism as religious prejudice, accusing detractors of “Hinduphobia.”

Controversial Nominees in Trump’s Cabinet

Gabbard is not the only contentious nominee in Trump’s proposed administration. Conservative Christian Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called for “urgent prayer” on November 11, urging that Trump surround himself with “godly counsel” in his cabinet selections. Among Trump’s choices are Vivek Ramaswamy, another Hindu nominee, and three individuals accused of sexual abuse: Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Robert Kennedy Jr.

Trump has signaled his intention to bypass Senate scrutiny for his appointments by using recess appointments, avoiding potentially uncomfortable confirmation hearings.

Gabbard’s nomination remains polarizing, with her political journey and ties to a controversial spiritual movement at the forefront of public debate.

Trump’s Bold Cabinet Picks: Provocation or Strategy?

President-elect Donald Trump has stirred controversy with his selection of key cabinet members, signaling a combative approach to shaping his administration. Among the most talked-about nominations are former Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services, and Fox News commentator Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense. These appointments have overshadowed more traditional choices like Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of State and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum as secretary of the Interior.

The quartet of controversial nominees has placed Senate Republicans in a challenging position. With the GOP holding a slim 53-47 majority in the Senate, all four appointees require confirmation. Trump’s picks appear to reflect his tightening grip on the Republican Party following his decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential election.

This show of dominance poses a dilemma for Senate Republicans, particularly those skeptical of Trump. Figures like Sens. Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, who previously voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial, are likely to voice concerns. Trump’s tense relationship with outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell adds another layer of complexity.

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, a vocal Trump critic, remarked that nominating individuals like Gaetz tests the party’s willingness to align with Trump’s agenda. “It shows you are not serious. You are really just giving Republicans a test to see how much they will bend to your will,” she said.

Gaetz’s nomination has already sparked significant turbulence. The Florida congressman resigned his seat upon being nominated, effectively halting a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, illegal drug use, and potential misuse of his position. Gaetz denies any wrongdoing.

The question of whether senators should have access to the committee’s findings has become contentious. Speaker Mike Johnson argued against releasing the report, calling it a “terrible breach of protocol and tradition.” Nevertheless, the delay in the Ethics Committee’s vote to decide on the report’s release has intensified scrutiny.

Republican senators, including Collins and Murkowski, have expressed skepticism. Murkowski dismissed Gaetz’s nomination as “not a serious nomination for attorney general,” while Collins said she was “shocked” by the decision. Sen. Joni Ernst added that Gaetz faced an “uphill climb” for confirmation.

A new complication emerged when an attorney representing two women involved in the Ethics Committee investigation alleged that one of the women had witnessed Gaetz engaging in sexual activity with a minor. This accusation has further clouded Gaetz’s prospects for confirmation.

Trump’s other nominations have also raised eyebrows. Gabbard, in particular, may face intense opposition from Republicans wary of her past comments that align closely with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Former Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz accused Gabbard of being “likely a Russian asset” during an MSNBC interview, although Gabbard has dismissed such allegations as “completely despicable.”

Kennedy’s controversial views, particularly his vaccine skepticism, pose another obstacle. Hegseth, despite his military background, has limited experience managing an organization as vast as the Defense Department, which employs nearly three million people.

The motivations behind Trump’s choices have sparked debate. Some observers believe he is determined to assemble a cabinet more aligned with his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) agenda, distancing himself from the traditional GOP establishment that characterized parts of his first term. Others see the nominations as a power move to assert control over remaining skeptics within the party.

A third theory posits that Trump may be deliberately advancing polarizing nominees to allow Republican senators to reject one and demonstrate independence while confirming the others. Under this scenario, Gaetz could serve as the sacrificial nominee. However, some argue that Gabbard’s contentious past could make her even more vulnerable to rejection.

Dan Judy, a Republican strategist, cautioned against overanalyzing Trump’s approach. “He is a creature of instinct and he acts on instinct,” Judy said. “For someone like Gaetz, [Trump] thinks, ‘He is loyal to me, he looks good on TV, and he is sitting next to me on the plane right now — why don’t we make him attorney general?’ I don’t think there is any Machiavellian strategy to it.”

Whether driven by strategy or impulse, Trump’s cabinet picks highlight the challenges his administration will bring. Senate Republicans now face the difficult task of balancing loyalty to their party leader with their constitutional duty to vet his nominees.

Lawmakers Join Indian Americans for Annual Diwali on Capitol Hill Celebration  

Over two dozen U.S. lawmakers joined Indian Americans in celebrating Diwali during the annual “Diwali on Capitol Hill” event on November 13. The gathering, organized by the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir in collaboration with several partner organizations, underscored the growing recognition of Indian culture and its integration into American society.

Prominent attendees included Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Hyde Smith (R-MS), along with U.S. Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Andy Ogles (R-TN), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Shri Thanedar (D-MI), Ben Cline (R-VA), Ben Hoyer (D-MD), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Dan Meuser (R-PA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Nick LaLota (R-NY), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Darin LaHood (R-IL), and Scott Perry (R-PA).

The celebration also saw the presence of Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Vinay Mohan Kwatra, alongside representatives from co-hosting organizations such as the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), Hindu American Foundation (HAF), and the U.S. Indian Community Foundation. Other partner groups included the Shrimad Rajchandra Mission Dharampur, Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA), and the American Jewish Committee (AJC).

During his address, Ambassador Kwatra highlighted the global embrace of Diwali, emphasizing its universal appeal. “This is an Indian festival which is embraced and celebrated the world over,” he stated. “Your presence here, the presence of so many congressmen and senators, has made it all the more special.”

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a key figure among Indian American lawmakers, delivered his greetings while underscoring the significance of the Indian diaspora’s contributions to American society. “I have to say, as one of the five current members of Congress who are Indian American, I affectionately call them the Samosa Caucus. We need more samosas in Congress,” he said, referring to the growing representation of Indian Americans in politics. He also shared the news of Suhas Subramanyam’s expected addition to this group, noting, “Indian Americans in this country have arrived.”

The event was marked by bipartisan appreciation for the values represented by Diwali—particularly the triumph of good over evil. Lawmakers expressed their admiration for the Indian American community and emphasized their commitment to protecting the cultural and religious diversity that enriches the United States.

Rep. Andrew Garbarino, in his address, stressed the importance of safeguarding Hindu temples across the country. “There is a bipartisan effort to make sure Hindu temples are protected,” he said. He also pointed to the Homeland Security Committee’s ongoing work in this area. “We’re going to continue to work to make sure that the temples get the security protection that they need,” Garbarino added, referencing a recent visit to the Melville BAPS temple as an example of community engagement.

Echoing similar sentiments, Rep. Tom Suozzi spoke about the values of respect and divinity intrinsic to Indian culture. “When Indian Americans place their hands like this and say namaste, they’re really recognizing the divinity and the respect they have for the person in front of them,” he noted. “We need more of that in our country today.”

Rep. Shri Thanedar addressed the gathering with a focus on the challenges faced by Hindu communities, both domestically and internationally. “There’s a lot that needs to be done,” he said. “I’m working with the State Department on the attacks on Hindu temples and making sure our community is protected all across America.” He further highlighted his efforts to address issues beyond U.S. borders, adding, “I’m also working with the State Department on the atrocities on Hindus in Bangladesh.”

The gathering reinforced the shared commitment of lawmakers and community leaders to fostering inclusivity, promoting cultural understanding, and ensuring the safety and freedom of all religious practices. As Diwali symbolizes the victory of light over darkness, the event served as a reminder of the values that unite diverse communities across the U.S.

Lawmakers and attendees alike emphasized the need for continued collaboration to address concerns and support the flourishing Indian American community. The “Diwali on Capitol Hill” celebration highlighted the growing significance of Indian culture in the national fabric, while also paving the way for meaningful conversations about unity, security, and shared values.

Trump’s Shockwaves Reshape Washington with Controversial Nominations

A political whirlwind swept through Washington on Wednesday as President-elect Donald Trump reshaped the political landscape with startling nominations that surprised even some members of his party. After meeting with President Biden at the White House and receiving a warm reception from the House GOP on Capitol Hill, Trump made bold moves that commanded the nation’s attention.

Among the most shocking decisions was his nomination of Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general. The announcement came shortly after Trump revealed his choice of Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman turned Republican from Hawaii, as director of national intelligence (DNI). These appointments overshadowed even Trump’s meeting with Biden and left other major announcements, such as the nomination of Sen. Marco Rubio as secretary of state, largely unnoticed.

Trump had also surprised many a day earlier by naming Fox News host Pete Hegseth as his pick for defense secretary. Though criticized for his lack of relevant experience, Hegseth’s selection paled in comparison to the controversies surrounding Gabbard and Gaetz. Collectively, these choices signaled Trump’s intent to deliver a seismic jolt to Washington as he prepares to return to the White House after his recent election victory.

Trump’s decisive win over Vice President Kamala Harris was his strongest showing across three presidential campaigns, giving him a mandate he appears eager to leverage. His actions highlight his determination to dismiss traditional political norms and intensify his brand of right-wing populism. His victory also cemented his complete takeover of the GOP, sidelining figures like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney. In the next Trump administration, the old Republican establishment may have no significant influence.

The appointment of Gaetz as head of the Department of Justice epitomizes this shift. A staunch Trump ally, Gaetz is well-known for his outspoken support of the former president and his penchant for media attention. He played a pivotal role in the ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy and has remained a polarizing figure, even among Republicans. However, his nomination is clouded by past controversies, including his involvement in a Department of Justice investigation into alleged sex trafficking. Although he was not charged, Gaetz remains under scrutiny by the House Ethics Committee, which is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct and illegal drug use—charges he vehemently denies.

Gaetz’s confirmation in the Senate, where Republicans will hold a narrow 53-47 majority, is far from guaranteed. His divisive reputation has drawn criticism even from fellow GOP lawmakers. When informed of the nomination, Rep. Mike Simpson reportedly reacted with disbelief, saying, “Are you s—ting me?” according to a Huffington Post reporter.

Meanwhile, Trump’s choice of Gabbard as DNI has raised concerns for different reasons. In announcing her nomination, Trump praised her “fearless spirit” and her shift from the Democratic to Republican Party. Gabbard, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, is remembered for challenging Harris’s record on criminal justice during a 2019 debate. However, her stance on issues like Russia and Ukraine has been a source of controversy. Gabbard suggested that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might have been avoided if NATO had addressed Moscow’s “legitimate security concerns.” Additionally, she claimed the U.S. was involved in developing biological weapons in Ukraine, a statement that prompted Romney to accuse her of spreading “false Russian propaganda.” If confirmed, Gabbard would gain access to the nation’s most sensitive intelligence.

Trump’s unorthodox appointments highlight the stark contrast between him and the man he is set to replace in the Oval Office, both in temperament and ideology. Despite their fraught history, Biden hosted Trump at the White House for a two-hour meeting. This marked a significant departure from 2020, when Trump refused to extend the same courtesy to Biden after losing the election. Trump had then insisted, without evidence, that he had won—a claim that culminated in the January 6 Capitol riot.

Photos of Biden and Trump seated together before a roaring fire symbolized an uneasy truce. Trump described Biden as “very gracious,” a sentiment echoed by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who called Trump’s demeanor during the meeting “substantive.” Despite the pleasantries, it was a bittersweet moment for Biden, whose 2020 campaign framed his battle against Trump as a fight for the “soul of America.” Biden’s reelection hopes had dimmed following a lackluster debate performance, and Harris’s failure to extend his legacy added to the disappointment.

Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, Trump received a hero’s welcome from House Republicans, who celebrated his election victory. In a buoyant meeting, Trump joked about assembling a Cabinet with 15 members of the House GOP and teased his ally, Elon Musk, in good humor.

However, not everything went Trump’s way. Sen. John Thune triumphed in the race for Senate majority leader, defeating John Cornyn and Rick Scott. Scott, the preferred candidate of Trump’s MAGA base, received the least support in the secret ballot. Nonetheless, this development was a minor blip in an otherwise chaotic day dominated by Trump’s bold moves.

Trump’s decisions signal a willingness to challenge established norms and consolidate his grip on power. His nominations underscore his readiness to prioritize loyalty and ideological alignment over conventional qualifications, ensuring his second term will be as disruptive as his first. While the day included minor setbacks, it was largely a showcase of Trump’s unyielding drive to reshape Washington on his terms.

Republicans Secure Control of U.S. House, Paving the Way for Trump’s Agenda

The Republican Party has clinched enough seats to assume control of the U.S. House of Representatives, solidifying its hold on the federal government alongside President-elect Donald Trump. This development completes the GOP’s power sweep, following their earlier success in gaining control of the Senate.

A victory in Arizona and another in California’s slow-counting race on Wednesday granted Republicans the 218 seats required for a majority in the House. With these wins, the GOP gains an opportunity to enact sweeping changes to federal policies, aligning with Trump’s vision for the nation.

Republican leaders, buoyed by their hard-fought yet narrow majorities, believe they now have a mandate to drastically reshape the federal government. President-elect Trump has pledged significant moves, including the largest deportation operation in U.S. history, expanded tax breaks, retribution against political adversaries, and major economic reforms. These electoral victories ensure Congress is in sync with his agenda, leaving Democrats with little ability to counter it.

In 2016, when Trump first assumed the presidency, Republicans also controlled Congress, but internal GOP resistance and a divided Supreme Court posed challenges. This time, Trump returns to the White House backed by a party transformed by his “Make America Great Again” movement and a Supreme Court dominated by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed during his previous term.

On Wednesday morning, Trump made his first post-election visit to Washington, addressing House Republicans at a Capitol Hill hotel. “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s good, we got to figure something else,’” he joked to the assembled lawmakers, who responded with laughter.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, who secured Trump’s endorsement to retain his position next year, has expressed an intent to overhaul federal government programs. “The American people want us to implement and deliver that ‘America First’ agenda,” Johnson declared earlier in the week. Known for his staunch conservatism, Johnson has aligned the House Republican Conference closer to Trump’s vision and is preparing an ambitious legislative plan for the first 100 days of the new Congress.

The GOP majority also positions Trump’s allies to pursue retribution for legal challenges he faced while out of office. On Wednesday, Trump announced he would nominate Rep. Matt Gaetz, a vocal supporter, for attorney general. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled plans to investigate special counsel Jack Smith, who is concluding federal probes into Trump’s actions surrounding the 2020 election and classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago.

Despite the victory, the GOP’s hold on the House is slim, with only a few races yet to be decided. This narrow margin could complicate Johnson’s efforts to maintain unity, particularly as Trump taps House members like Gaetz, Mike Waltz, and Elise Stefanik for administration roles. Gaetz announced his resignation on Wednesday, effective immediately, prompting Johnson to express hope that his seat would be filled by special election before the new Congress convenes on January 3.

The slim Republican majority could face challenges in maintaining cohesion. In the last Congress, infighting among hardline conservatives often hampered the GOP’s ability to govern effectively. While Johnson, with Trump’s support, has managed to suppress overt rebellions, the party’s right wing has gained momentum following Trump’s election victory.

Further complicating matters is a contingent of Republican lawmakers who won tight races by campaigning as moderates. Their willingness to support Trump’s more extreme proposals remains uncertain.

On the Democratic side, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is striving to keep his party relevant in shaping legislation, despite being outnumbered. This effort requires unity among over 200 Democratic members, even as the party evaluates the reasons behind its electoral losses.

In the Senate, the GOP’s commanding majority enables swift confirmation of Trump’s Cabinet picks. On Wednesday, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota succeeded Sen. Mitch McConnell as the party’s leader. Thune, who had previously criticized Trump, struck a conciliatory tone during his leadership bid. “This Republican team is united. We are on one team,” he said, expressing enthusiasm for working with House Republicans to advance Trump’s agenda.

The Republicans’ 53-seat Senate majority provides them with breathing room to confirm Cabinet members and potentially Supreme Court nominees, should a vacancy arise. However, not all nominations are expected to sail through without controversy. News of Gaetz’s prospective nomination as attorney general drew skepticism, even among Trump’s Senate allies, due to past allegations of misconduct against him.

Despite resistance, Trump has demanded that Republican leaders allow him to make administration appointments during Senate recesses without a formal vote, a move that would shift significant power from the Senate to the president. GOP leaders have largely agreed to this proposal, though Democrats may attempt to block it.

Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters on social media, including billionaire Elon Musk, have voiced opposition to appointing traditional Republicans to key Senate roles. Thune’s leadership has drawn particular scrutiny, given his past association with McConnell, who once referred to Trump as a “despicable human being.”

However, McConnell himself acknowledged that Republican resistance to Trump has largely evaporated. On Capitol Hill, the party appears unified in its commitment to advancing Trump’s policy goals, setting the stage for significant changes in the coming years.

Trump Hints at Third Presidential Run, But Constitutional Barriers Stand Firm

Newly re-elected President Donald Trump has hinted at the possibility of seeking an unprecedented third term, suggesting it might depend on the encouragement of his supporters. Speaking to House Republicans, Trump remarked, “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you [supporters] say otherwise.” His statement was met with enthusiastic support from his audience during a Washington D.C. address, shortly before his scheduled meeting with outgoing President Joe Biden.

Currently, the U.S. Constitution, through the 22nd Amendment, bars any president from serving more than two terms. Trump’s suggestion of a third term raises questions about the solidity of these constitutional limits and whether they could realistically be altered to permit another run in 2028. However, legal experts and constitutional scholars view any attempt to dismantle these term limits as highly improbable.

The 22nd Amendment: Limiting Presidential Terms

The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, strictly limits presidents to a maximum of two terms, regardless of whether these are consecutive or separated by other administrations. Section 1 of the Amendment clearly states, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

Further restrictions apply to presidents who have assumed office mid-term; if a vice president or other official completes more than two years of a previous president’s term, they may only serve one full additional term. This provision has set firm boundaries on presidential tenure since its ratification, creating substantial obstacles for any president, including Trump, who might aim to exceed these limits.

Historical Background of the 22nd Amendment

The drive to limit presidential terms arose from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s unprecedented four-term presidency. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 until his death in 1945, remains the only U.S. president to have held office for more than two terms. His extended time in office spurred bipartisan support for setting a ceiling on presidential tenure, leading to the 22nd Amendment’s passage in 1951. Both Republicans and Democrats supported the amendment, viewing two-term presidencies as aligned with the precedent established by George Washington, who voluntarily stepped down after two terms.

Amending the U.S. Constitution: A Daunting Task

For Trump to legally pursue a third term, the 22nd Amendment would have to be repealed—a challenging and unlikely endeavor due to the complex process involved in altering the U.S. Constitution. Repealing an amendment requires a new amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This process would necessitate the support of 290 of the 435 House members and 67 of the 100 senators.

However, congressional approval is only the first hurdle. Following a successful vote in Congress, the proposed amendment would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the U.S. states. With 50 states in total, at least 38 state legislatures would need to approve the change. The checks and balances embedded in this process make constitutional amendments—especially those repealing existing amendments—extraordinarily difficult to enact. A Stanford law professor recently underscored the improbability of a third term for Trump, saying, “No, there are none. This will be his last run for President.”

The Role of State Ratification

For any proposed constitutional amendment to succeed, it must clear not only the federal legislative threshold but also earn widespread state-level support. Even if Congress were to agree on repealing the 22nd Amendment, achieving a three-fourths majority in state legislatures presents another formidable obstacle. This requirement underscores the federal nature of the U.S. Constitution, as amendments must reflect not only national but also broad regional support. Given the diversity of political views across the states, securing this level of agreement is challenging for any constitutional change.

The framers of the 22nd Amendment designed it to be durable, creating a high bar for repealing presidential term limits. The lengthy, multi-stage process ensures that such changes cannot be enacted based on short-term political interests. Consequently, although Trump has floated the idea of a third term, the constitutional and political landscape renders it highly improbable.

The Symbolism of Presidential Term Limits

Presidential term limits, now embedded in the 22nd Amendment, symbolize a commitment to democratic principles and a resistance to prolonged executive power. Even in times of crisis or popular support, the two-term limit reinforces the idea of leadership turnover as a democratic ideal. Proponents of term limits argue that they prevent any one individual from amassing too much power, ensuring that leadership opportunities rotate among qualified candidates.

Term limits also serve to maintain a balance of power, reinforcing the separation of powers within the government. By restricting the presidency to two terms, the amendment ensures that executive influence cannot extend indefinitely, safeguarding the democratic process against potential abuses of authority.

Realistic Prospects for Trump’s Third Term

While Trump’s statements have rekindled discussions about potential third-term presidential runs, the practical hurdles make this an unlikely prospect. In addition to the legislative and state-level challenges involved in amending the Constitution, there is currently no significant bipartisan support for repealing presidential term limits. Both major U.S. political parties view the two-term limit as a safeguard against authoritarianism and a critical component of the nation’s democratic structure.

In his recent remarks to House Republicans, Trump’s statements may have been more rhetorical than realistic, aiming to engage his supporters with the idea of his extended leadership. However, with the constitutional boundaries firmly in place, any actual move toward a third-term presidency would face insurmountable obstacles.

The U.S. Constitution’s amendment process, designed to require widespread consensus and deliberation, functions as a robust guardrail against quick or politically motivated changes. Even for a popular or controversial figure like Trump, the procedural hurdles for repealing the 22nd Amendment render any attempt at a third term virtually impossible. Consequently, while the notion of Trump seeking a third term has sparked public interest, the Constitution’s checks and balances appear likely to prevent such an occurrence.

Although Trump has teased the possibility of a third term contingent on his supporters’ enthusiasm, the constitutional framework remains a powerful impediment. As it stands, the United States remains bound by a foundational commitment to two-term presidencies, a principle rooted in the country’s democratic legacy and supported by both historical precedent and legal barriers.

Vivek Ramaswamy’s Role in Shaping U.S. Immigration Policy: From Presidential Candidate to Key Conservative Voice

Vivek Ramaswamy, a businessman with Indian immigrant roots, has become a significant figure in the American political landscape. Born in Cincinnati to parents who emigrated from India, Ramaswamy’s influence has primarily centered around his bold immigration views. Although he ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2023 after finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses, his voice continues to resonate in conservative circles, especially on immigration issues.

Throughout his campaign, Ramaswamy consistently championed strict immigration policies, particularly advocating for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. He emphasized that those who entered the country illegally should not be allowed to stay, citing the importance of “restoring the rule of law” in the U.S. During a recent interview with ABC News, he argued that immigrants who entered the country illegally in recent years did not have deep connections to the nation. He proposed cutting government benefits for undocumented immigrants as a way to encourage voluntary departures. “Those who have committed a crime should be out of this country. That alone would be the largest mass deportation,” Ramaswamy stated, highlighting his firm stance on the issue.

Ramaswamy has also been a vocal supporter of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” platform. Despite ending his presidential bid, he was reportedly chosen to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) should Trump win the 2024 election. His advocacy on immigration reform is often informed by his own family’s immigration experience. His mother, who is now a U.S. citizen, immigrated from India with his father. Interestingly, his father, who has lived in the U.S. for decades, chose to retain his Indian citizenship, a decision Ramaswamy has defended as a personal one based on familial connections. Speaking at the Iowa State Fair in August 2023, Ramaswamy discussed his father’s choice, emphasizing that it was not a reflection of any political stance but a decision rooted in family ties.

Ramaswamy’s views extend beyond deportation, as he advocates for a more rigorous approach to education. He has called for a civics test requirement for all high school graduates in the U.S., similar to the citizenship test immigrants must take. “I think every high school student who graduates in this country should have to pass the same civics test that an immigrant, like my parents, had to pass,” he said. This proposal aligns with his broader efforts to reshape American institutions, pushing for reforms that he believes would strengthen national identity and legal standards.

Despite stepping out of the presidential race and lending his support to Trump, Ramaswamy’s political influence remains significant. His continued commitment to the overhaul of U.S. immigration law reflects his belief in practical reforms to address illegal immigration, framed by the symbolism of his own family’s immigrant journey. Whether or not he returns to the political arena, Ramaswamy’s views on immigration and his role in the conservative movement will likely continue to shape the national conversation on immigration policy.

Trump Appoints Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to Lead “Department of Government Efficiency

President-elect Donald Trump has named Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to head a new initiative he has dubbed the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE). The acronym, which shares its name with a dog-themed cryptocurrency that gained popularity after Musk’s endorsement, will focus on reducing government spending and eliminating inefficiencies within federal agencies.

Trump made the announcement in a statement Tuesday evening, emphasizing that Musk and Ramaswamy would be tasked with reforming government operations. While it remains unclear whether this new entity will be part of the federal government or operate independently, creating an official government agency requires approval from Congress.

In his statement, Trump praised the two men, calling them “wonderful Americans” who would help his administration eliminate bureaucracy, reduce unnecessary regulations, cut wasteful spending, and restructure federal agencies. He added, “Essential to the ‘Save America’ Movement,” Trump stated, “I look forward to Elon and Vivek making changes to the Federal Bureaucracy with an eye on efficiency and, at the same time, making life better for all Americans.”

This appointment represents another break from traditional political practices for Trump as he assembles his administration. It also underscores the close relationships he has developed with both Musk and Ramaswamy, businessmen who, while new to politics, have become trusted allies of the incoming president.

During his campaign, Trump hinted at creating a government role for Musk, the billionaire behind Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X. Musk, who has grown increasingly influential in conservative political circles, had previously proposed the creation of a “government efficiency commission” to monitor federal agencies. This proposal came during an exchange with Trump on X. Since the election, Trump and Musk have maintained a close working relationship.

Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and former Republican presidential candidate, is also making his official entrance into Trump’s administration with this new role. He had previously been considered as a potential vice-presidential candidate. In a post on X responding to the announcement, Ramaswamy declared, “We will not go gently,” tagging Musk in his post. Musk, in turn, commented separately on Trump’s announcement, stating, “This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!”

Typically, department heads must be confirmed by the Senate, but it is unclear what formalities Musk and Ramaswamy will need to follow for their new positions. For Musk, there are concerns about potential conflicts of interest, given that his companies, which receive government funding, may fall under regulatory authority from the new department. Tesla, SpaceX, and Starlink, all part of Musk’s empire, have been subjects of federal investigations.

Musk’s relationship with Trump has become a defining feature of the final phase of Trump’s presidential campaign. As one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, Musk not only appeared on the campaign trail but also made significant financial contributions, spending over $100 million through his super PAC, America PAC. His financial backing surpassed the total contributions from the entire oil industry during that period.

Musk’s decision to back Trump was an unconventional move. While Musk made his fortune in the electric vehicle sector with a stated commitment to addressing climate change, he now finds himself supporting a politician who has been dismissive of concerns about carbon emissions. Trump, for his part, has publicly acknowledged Musk’s influence, even softening his rhetoric on electric vehicles in response to Musk’s endorsement. Trump referred to Musk as a “super genius” during his victory speech and included him in a family photo after the election.

Musk’s approach to government spending aligns with Trump’s goal of budget cuts. The tech magnate had previously suggested that the federal budget could be significantly reduced, proposing cuts of at least $2 trillion during a rally with Trump supporters in New York City just before the election.

In addition to his financial contributions, Musk has a history of cost-cutting within his own businesses. After acquiring X (formerly Twitter), Musk implemented mass layoffs, reducing the company’s workforce from 8,000 employees to just 1,500. This track record of cost reduction within his own ventures supports his role in leading efforts to streamline federal agencies.

Musk has also indicated that he plans to keep his super PAC active as the Republican Party prepares for special elections and midterm races. This could help sustain his influence on the political landscape, particularly as it relates to federal spending and regulatory reform.

Like Musk, Ramaswamy has long been a proponent of cutting federal expenditures. He gained attention during his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination for his calls to shrink the size of the federal government. His proposals included cutting the Federal Reserve’s workforce by 90% and deporting American-born children of undocumented immigrants. After exiting the race and endorsing Trump, Ramaswamy’s political focus has shifted to supporting Trump’s vision for government reform.

Ramaswamy’s policies on reducing federal spending echo Musk’s beliefs, positioning both men as advocates for drastic government reforms. Their combined efforts in leading the “Department of Government Efficiency” will likely have a significant impact on Trump’s administration and its approach to managing federal resources.

Trump’s appointment of Musk and Ramaswamy to lead DOGE reflects his commitment to reducing government inefficiency and cutting federal spending. The duo, both relatively new to politics, has proven to be valuable allies to Trump, and their efforts to dismantle bureaucratic waste are expected to be a focal point of the incoming administration. Despite questions about potential conflicts of interest, especially concerning Musk’s business empire, the duo’s shared vision for efficiency and fiscal responsibility could shape Trump’s policy direction moving forward. As Ramaswamy put it, “We will not go gently,” indicating the sweeping changes they plan to implement in the federal government.

Florida Lawmakers in Contention for Major Roles in Trump’s Administration

Two prominent Florida lawmakers with firm positions against China are contenders for senior roles in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration. According to sources, Senator Marco Rubio may become the future secretary of state, while military veteran Michael Waltz is being considered for national security adviser, CBS News reports. Another potential key figure in Trump’s government is South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who may take on the role of homeland security secretary.

Currently, neither Rubio nor Waltz’s offices have commented on these possible appointments. Trump’s administration is beginning to solidify following his recent election victory, and his Republican Party is on the verge of holding a majority in both chambers of Congress. They have regained the Senate and are approaching a majority in the House as vote-counting continues. Certain appointments, such as secretary of state, would need Senate approval, although Trump has expressed a desire for the Senate leader to allow him to bypass this requirement. Other positions, including national security adviser, can be filled directly by the president without Senate involvement.

The possible appointments for Rubio, Waltz, and Noem follow several recent decisions by Trump. He selected Susie Wiles as his chief of staff, nominated former immigration official Tom Homan as “border tsar,” and chose New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik as his future ambassador to the United Nations. Trump has the authority to make around 4,000 political appointments, and his first presidency demonstrated the challenges of assembling a cabinet, which took him several months to complete.

Marco Rubio: The Foreign Policy Hawk

Though unconfirmed, Rubio, 53, is widely seen as a strong candidate for the secretary of state position, the top U.S. diplomatic role. Rubio’s political career has prepared him well for such a post. He currently serves as vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and sits on the Foreign Relations Committee. Known as a foreign policy “hawk,” Rubio has been a vocal advocate for strict stances against both Iran and China. He has also shown support for Ukraine but has remarked that the ongoing conflict with Russia “needs to be brought to a conclusion.”

Rubio and Trump were once bitter rivals during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, with disagreements on multiple issues, especially immigration. Their clashes led to public exchanges of insults, with Trump dubbing him “little Marco,” and Rubio making comments about Trump’s “small hands.” However, Rubio eventually endorsed Trump and campaigned for him ahead of the 2024 election. He was even a potential candidate for vice president before the role went to JD Vance, who holds a similar view to Trump on China.

The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio has a background that resonates with many working-class voters. He was first elected to the Senate in 2010, bringing with him a tough stance on foreign policy that has positioned him as a prominent voice on global security issues within the Republican Party.

Michael Waltz: Soldier Turned Congressman

Michael Waltz, 50, is expected to take on the role of national security adviser, as reported by CBS. His military background and long-standing support for Trump have made him a fitting candidate for the position, which focuses on identifying and countering threats to the U.S. Unlike other appointments, the role of national security adviser does not require Senate approval. Waltz, a decorated Green Beret, has completed multiple tours in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa. His experiences, which he documented in his book Warrior Diplomat: A Green Beret’s Battles from Washington to Afghanistan, include time spent in combat operations overseas and in policy roles within the Pentagon under President George W. Bush.

Waltz is also a staunch advocate for U.S. preparedness in the Pacific, a stance shaped by his concerns over China’s expanding influence. Serving as chair of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, he has called for increased measures to prepare for potential conflicts in the region. While he has supported U.S. aid to Ukraine, Waltz has suggested recently that the extent of American spending on the war effort might need reevaluation. He believes NATO allies should bolster their defense spending, though he has not gone as far as Trump, who has reportedly floated the idea of the U.S. withdrawing from the alliance.

“Look, we can be allies and friends and have tough conversations,” Waltz remarked last month, highlighting his stance on balancing alliances with a strong national defense policy. Following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Waltz has been a vocal critic of President Joe Biden’s handling of foreign policy.

If appointed, Waltz would be required to resign from his seat in the House of Representatives, potentially affecting a Republican majority if they end up holding a slim lead. Waltz would be the fifth national security adviser appointed by Trump, who replaced three of his four previous advisers during his first term. This included Michael Flynn, HR McMaster, and John Bolton, the latter actively opposing Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Kristi Noem: The South Dakota Governor

Governor Kristi Noem, 52, is anticipated to oversee U.S. homeland security, a critical role addressing border security, cyber threats, terrorism, and emergency response. The Department of Homeland Security, which she may head, operates with a $62 billion budget and has thousands of employees. Noem would collaborate with Tom Homan, who was named “border tsar,” and Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy lead, to implement the administration’s immigration objectives.

Noem was bypassed for the vice-presidential nomination in part due to a curious revelation in which she admitted to killing her pet dog. Her political journey began when she dropped out of college at age 22 to take over her family’s farm, a decision that eventually led her to public office. In 2018, she became the first woman elected governor of South Dakota.

Known for her close association with Trump, Noem reportedly gifted him a 4-foot replica of Mount Rushmore with his likeness added alongside former presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. Trump once jokingly expressed a desire to see his face carved on the monument, a sentiment that Noem took as an opportunity to humor him with the personalized replica.

As Trump’s administration takes shape, figures like Rubio, Waltz, and Noem are set to play vital roles if their nominations are confirmed. Each brings a distinctive perspective and approach to Trump’s national and international policies, particularly in areas of foreign relations and domestic security. Whether Rubio’s foreign policy rigor, Waltz’s military insight, or Noem’s firm stance on immigration, the selections underscore Trump’s commitment to security and a hardline approach in dealing with global adversaries like China. Their combined influence would contribute significantly to the Trump administration’s stance on both domestic and international fronts.

Trump’s second term promises a familiar yet more resolute lineup, as allies and long-time supporters join his administration.

Republicans Retain Control of House, Securing All GOP Power in Washington with Trump’s Return

Republicans are expected to maintain control of the House of Representatives, solidifying GOP dominance in Washington as President-elect Trump prepares to re-enter the White House in January. Decision Desk HQ announced on Monday that Republicans had secured their 218th seat, achieving the majority needed in the House.

This victory is a significant achievement for Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican who rose to prominence rapidly and has since played a substantial role in shaping the House GOP’s legislative and campaign agendas. Notably, Republicans managed to secure some of their more at-risk seats, including those held by Representatives Don Bacon of Nebraska and David Valadao of California. In contrast, some Democratic incumbents, such as Representatives Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, lost their seats to Republican challengers, Pennsylvania state Rep. Ryan Mackenzie and businessman Rob Bresnahan, respectively.

However, Republicans did not come away unscathed, with three first-term New York Representatives—Anthony D’Esposito, Marc Molinaro, and Brandon Williams—losing their reelection bids, along with Lori Chavez-DeRemer from Oregon. The final composition of the House remains uncertain as ballots are still being tallied for several races in California, but Republicans are predicted to hold a slim majority as the new Congress convenes.

The exact seat numbers will significantly impact Speaker Johnson’s future, the policies Republicans can push forward, and overall functionality in the lower chamber. Trump acknowledged Johnson’s efforts in his victory speech from Palm Beach early Wednesday, saying, “It also looks like we’ll be keeping control of the House of Representatives. And I want to thank Mike Johnson. I think he’s doing a terrific job.” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and House GOP Chair Elise Stefanik, who joined Trump at Mar-a-Lago, signaled the GOP’s strong support for the incoming Trump administration.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have been working together for months to prepare a legislative agenda for Trump’s first 100 days under unified Republican control. Key legislative plans include extending tax cuts from Trump’s first term, increasing border wall funding, reversing climate policies, and advancing school choice.

Still, the GOP’s ambitious goals face potential hurdles. The previous Congress was marked by a notably slim House majority, which saw frequent internal disagreements that sometimes halted legislative proceedings. This discord was epitomized by the removal of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a historic vote. Johnson’s future as Speaker also hangs in the balance, with the final majority size influencing his standing. Johnson has expressed intentions to pursue the Speaker role if Republicans secure a unified government, despite opposition from some hard-line conservatives. Earlier this year, he survived a challenge led by Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, who sought to oust him; their efforts were thwarted with help from House Democrats.

Johnson will need near-total Republican backing to keep his Speaker position, as he requires a majority vote on the House floor in January 2025. “I intend to have my party’s support for Speaker on the House floor,” Johnson stated in an October interview.

The GOP win effectively blocks House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries from making history as the first Black Speaker. The contest for House control was closely fought, comparable to the presidential race, with battleground districts spread nationwide, although primarily in non-presidential battleground states. Democrats would have needed a net gain of at least four seats to claim the majority and had hoped that voters concerned about Republican positions on reproductive rights would boost their chances.

National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chair Richard Hudson, who is pursuing another term, highlighted key strategies that boosted the GOP’s House campaign. In an Election Day interview, Hudson credited the NRCC’s approach to splitting the cost of TV ads with candidates, enabling them to leverage lower ad rates and stretch campaign funds further. The NRCC also prioritized on-the-ground campaigning, with Hudson noting, “I feel like the last couple cycles, national parties have gotten away from ground game, and we made a major investment in our ground game this time around,” citing the opening of over 40 field offices, or “battle stations.”

This election outcome will shape the final legislative battles in the remaining weeks of the 118th Congress. Hard-line conservatives are likely to push to delay consideration of critical proposals until the new year when they hope a Republican-led Senate and White House will allow for more conservative policies and reduced spending. Meanwhile, the House will face pressing decisions in the lame-duck session, including funding for the government, which is set to expire on December 20.

Trump’s Potential Second Term: Sweeping Changes Across Key Policy Areas

In his campaign for a potential second term, Donald Trump has laid out an extensive vision for the U.S., advocating policies that merge conservative values with a populist focus on trade and a reduced global footprint. His agenda includes changes to immigration, tax reforms, restrictions on federal civil rights efforts, and a significant expansion of presidential power.

Immigration

Trump’s immigration strategy has evolved from his 2016 campaign slogan, “Build the wall!” to proposing “the largest mass deportation program in history.” He suggests deploying the National Guard and granting local police new powers to enforce immigration laws. While details on the program’s specifics remain limited, his approach includes implementing “ideological screening” for immigrants, ending birthright citizenship (likely requiring constitutional amendments), and reinstating policies such as “Remain in Mexico” and bans on entrants from certain majority-Muslim countries. These efforts aim to curb both illegal and legal immigration.

Abortion

Although Trump claims credit for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, he has not prioritized abortion regulation at the federal level. His approach contrasts with the traditional Republican stance; in 2020, the GOP platform notably avoided advocating a national abortion ban. However, Trump hasn’t explicitly stated if he would veto federal abortion restrictions, leaving some ambiguity. Anti-abortion advocates may still pursue a national ban by asserting a fetus’s due process rights under the 14th Amendment, but Trump’s focus remains more on state-level regulation.

Tax Policy

Trump aims to extend his 2017 tax cuts, benefitting corporations and high-income earners. His tax plan includes reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, rolling back Biden-era tax increases on wealthy individuals, and eliminating climate-related taxes under the Inflation Reduction Act. He also proposes measures aimed at middle- and working-class Americans, such as exempting tips, Social Security wages, and overtime from income taxes. Yet, the tip exemption could indirectly benefit top earners if their compensation were reclassified as “tip income.”

Trade and Tariffs

With a more skeptical view of international markets, Trump’s trade strategy would impose tariffs of 10-20% on foreign goods and higher tariffs in some cases. He pledges to reinstate a 2020 executive order mandating that the FDA purchase “essential” medicines from U.S.-based suppliers and seeks to bar Chinese entities from acquiring vital U.S. infrastructure.

DEI, LGBTQ Rights, and Civil Rights

Trump intends to diminish government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he sees as promoting unnecessary societal divisions. His stance includes ending federal funding for DEI initiatives. On LGBTQ rights, Trump has taken a firm stance against transgender inclusion in sports, vowing to “end boys in girls’ sports.” He plans to rescind Title IX protections for transgender students and has called for federal legislation that only two genders be recognized at birth.

Regulation, Bureaucracy, and Presidential Power

To reduce federal bureaucratic influence, Trump proposes slashing regulations across industries, particularly those affecting fossil fuel production and housing development. He argues that deregulation would result in lower utility bills and stimulate economic growth. Furthermore, Trump intends to reclassify thousands of federal workers, removing civil service protections and thereby simplifying the process of dismissing federal employees. This approach could impact the government’s enforcement capabilities and deter employees from acting against presidential directives.

Trump also claims that presidents should have the authority to control federal spending autonomously, suggesting that congressional budget decisions set a maximum rather than a minimum for federal expenditure. This interpretation could lead to significant conflicts with Congress over budgetary control. Additionally, Trump has floated the idea of increasing presidential influence over the Federal Reserve, potentially altering its independent role in setting interest rates.

Education

Trump has proposed dismantling the Department of Education, though he still envisions using federal funds to influence state education systems. He advocates for the elimination of teacher tenure, merit-based pay, and scrapping of diversity initiatives across all education levels. At the higher education level, Trump aims to directly influence the accreditation process for colleges, calling it a strategy to counter “Marxist Maniacs” in academia. He also targets large university endowments, threatening to tax or fine institutions that do not adhere to his policies. Trump’s vision includes redirecting these funds to an online “American Academy” offering free college credentials to all U.S. citizens. He envisions this academy as a non-political, strictly regulated institution devoid of “wokeness or jihadism,” as he stated on November 1, 2023.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

In a second term, Trump promises to protect Social Security and Medicare, vital programs for older Americans. However, his plan to exempt tips and overtime wages from income taxes raises questions about the programs’ funding, as exempting these wages from payroll taxes would impact the revenue streams for Social Security and Medicare. Regarding Medicaid, Trump’s first term primarily supported granting states waivers for federal requirements and endorsing work requirements for recipients.

Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act

Trump remains committed to repealing the Affordable Care Act but has yet to present a concrete replacement. In a recent debate, he referred to having “concepts of a plan” for healthcare reform. He has aligned himself with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a critic of vaccines and certain pesticides, and hinted at giving Kennedy a role in “making America healthy again.”

Climate and Energy

Trump has criticized Biden’s investments in clean energy, framing climate change as a “hoax” and proposing an energy strategy that focuses on fossil fuels. He encourages traditional energy development, including increased oil and gas drilling, and has promised to end incentives for electric vehicles while repealing fuel efficiency standards. Although he does not oppose electric vehicles outright, he resists policies that promote their adoption.

Workers’ Rights

Trump’s second-term labor policies are aimed at defending the interests of American workers, although his stance on unionization may limit their ability to organize. He often highlights Biden’s push for electric vehicles as a primary issue facing workers, blaming “union bosses and CEOs” for supporting what he calls a misguided shift toward EVs. In a recent statement, Trump encouraged United Auto Workers members to avoid paying union dues.

National Defense and Foreign Policy

Trump’s foreign policy is more isolationist and non-interventionist compared to recent U.S. strategies. He promotes military expansion, proposes a missile defense shield similar to Reagan-era initiatives, and aims to shield Pentagon spending from budget cuts. Trump has made bold claims about ending conflicts, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, without providing specifics on how he would achieve these goals. His “peace through strength” philosophy, borrowed from Reagan, is paired with skepticism toward NATO and critical views of U.S. military leaders. “I don’t consider them leaders,” Trump remarked about top military officials, while he has consistently praised authoritarian figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

In summary, Trump’s proposed second term agenda spans sweeping changes across immigration, taxes, civil rights, federal power, education, and national defense. His approach diverges from recent presidents by combining conservative values with an intense focus on populist and isolationist themes, which, if enacted, could redefine America’s role on both the domestic and international stage.

2024 Election: Trump Secures Sweeping Victory with Unprecedented Demographic Gains

The 2024 election delivered a surprising political upheaval, with former President Donald Trump winning not only the Electoral College but making strides in the popular vote, expanding his coalition in ways not previously seen. This win grants Trump the reins of Washington with an unparalleled level of control. Central to his victory were issues that resonated deeply with voters and a campaign that saw significant support, particularly among men. Here’s a breakdown of the factors and shifts that contributed to this election’s outcome.

  1. Issues Favoring Republicans from the Start

Voters’ concerns about the economy and high rates of border crossings had simmered for two years, creating a fertile ground for Republican messaging. While indicators like low unemployment, rising wages, and reduced inflation signaled economic recovery, many Americans still felt squeezed by prices that remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Housing affordability continued to be a top concern, as did the rising interest rates driven by the Federal Reserve’s approach to combating inflation. Though the Fed recently began cutting rates, the effects will not be felt immediately—right as Trump re-enters the White House.

Voters appeared to hold the Biden administration responsible for their struggles despite the U.S. economy outperforming other developed nations. Vice President Kamala Harris, however, couldn’t sufficiently dissociate herself from these economic woes. Polls reflected Biden’s approval at a mere 40%, with two-thirds rating the economy poorly, and 75% of voters experiencing significant inflation-driven hardships over the past year. Trump gained voter trust not only on economic issues but also immigration, crime, and even foreign policy, though the latter was less of a priority for voters.

While Harris held the edge on abortion rights, it was a narrower lead than anticipated, failing to sway enough of the electorate to offset Trump’s strengths in other areas.

  1. Surge in White Voter Turnout Boosted Trump

For the first time in decades, white voters’ share of the electorate increased—from 67% in 2020 to 71% in 2024—despite their steadily declining proportion of the overall population. This increase provided Trump with a vital advantage, as white voters have traditionally leaned Republican since at least 1976. With Latino and Asian American demographics growing, the larger-than-expected white voter turnout served as a powerful bolster to Trump’s numbers.

  1. Expanded Coalition Driven Largely by Men

Trump attracted 46% of Latino voters, setting a new record for Republican support within this demographic, surpassing even George W. Bush’s 2004 levels. This surge was fueled largely by Latino men, who supported Trump by a significant margin, whereas Harris claimed 60% of Latina voters. A similar gender gap emerged among young voters, with Harris capturing 61% of young women (18 to 29), while young men narrowly leaned towards Trump. In fact, Trump won the male vote across all age brackets, with Harris unable to secure enough support among women to offset this trend.

  1. Higher Female Voter Share Did Not Translate to Victory for Harris

While women constituted 53% of the electorate—an increase from 2020—Harris’s performance among female voters fell short of expectations. She won a majority of the female vote, including “moms,” while Trump claimed “dads,” but her 53% share was notably lower than Biden’s 57% in 2020. A divide among white women by education level was evident: Harris gained with college-educated white women, but Trump performed better with those without college degrees, who turned out in higher numbers. White men with and without college degrees also leaned towards Trump, leaving Harris unable to bridge the gap.

  1. Gender Divide Raises Questions on a Female Presidency

Harris’s loss raises questions about the readiness of the American electorate to support a female president. Some analysts believe that being tied to the Biden administration’s struggles worked against her. Had a Republican been in office during this period of economic unease, Harris might have seen a different result. Surveys indicated gendered perceptions of her campaign promises, with most women seeing her proposals as sincere, while men expressed skepticism, viewing her promises as strategic vote-seeking moves. This divide will likely prompt ongoing discussion regarding gender dynamics in U.S. politics.

  1. Ticket-Splitting Helped but Couldn’t Prevent GOP Dominance

Democratic candidates outperformed Harris in numerous House and Senate races, indicating a degree of ticket-splitting. Senate Democrats held margins against Republicans in many states, including Montana, Arizona, and Ohio, but fell short in Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Democrats also hoped to win or retain House seats in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and California, yet are expected to fall just short of the majority. The top-ticket outcome underscored the challenges of riding against a strong presidential ticket during election cycles.

  1. Democratic Voter Turnout Was Noticeably Lower

Compared to Biden’s record-breaking 81 million votes in 2020, Harris may come up nearly 10 million votes short. Blue states like New York, New Jersey, and Maryland saw substantial declines in support, with Harris receiving roughly 900,000 fewer votes in New York, 500,000 in New Jersey and Maryland, 300,000 in Massachusetts, and 180,000 in Virginia. Director of the Monmouth Poll, Patrick Murray, noted a 15% drop in Northeastern states, Minnesota, and Illinois, while red states saw a 10% decline and swing states around 4%. In contrast, Trump improved his numbers across all regions, particularly in swing states.

  1. Polls Underestimated Trump but Highlighted Key Trends

Polling averages underestimated Trump’s support, showing Harris with a slight lead, which ultimately didn’t hold. Trump is expected to win the popular vote 50%-48%, with polling largely reflecting Harris’s numbers but misjudging Trump’s base strength, especially in swing states. Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, with late-deciding voters swinging his way—this election was no exception. Trump won voters who decided in the last days and weeks by significant margins, demonstrating his late-game momentum.

Despite some miscalculations, the polls accurately captured certain dynamics, like Harris’s lower support among Latinos and young voters. While Harris’s campaign opened strong, the polls showed a tightening race about a month before the election, with Trump eventually leading in the swing state average. Factoring previous polling errors, analysts noted the potential for a major Trump Electoral College victory, which ultimately materialized.

  1. Democrats Face a Crossroads on Future Strategy

As with every election loss, Democrats now face the task of analyzing their shortcomings and plotting a way forward. The Democratic Party’s ongoing struggle to connect with working-class voters—once a solidly Democratic base—remains a challenge. Harris narrowly lost suburban voters, and those earning between $30,000 and $100,000 largely supported Trump, while Democrats held onto wealthier, college-educated voters. This realignment could place Democrats at risk of becoming a party perceived as catering to elites—a demographic insufficient in numbers to guarantee future victories.

The future of the Democratic Party depends on its ability to regain working- and middle-class support, particularly as rural regions continue to favor Republicans. Yet, it’s worth noting how quickly political dynamics can shift. Just a decade ago, Republicans were worried about their standing among Latino voters and anticipated a permanent minority unless they pursued immigration reform. Yet, the party’s shift in direction resulted in record Latino support in this election.

Thus, while trends may seem to indicate one trajectory, political landscapes are fluid. The unexpected gains for Trump underscore that anticipated outcomes aren’t always what materialize. The Democratic Party now faces the challenge of recalibrating to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters as it contemplates the future.

Trump Secures Arizona, Completes Electoral Sweep in Key Battleground States

Donald Trump has secured Arizona in the presidential election, marking a complete sweep across all seven key battleground states. The Associated Press called the Arizona race for Trump on Saturday, effectively solidifying his victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. With the Arizona win, Trump now has a decisive electoral college lead with an anticipated final tally of 312 votes against Harris’s 226, surpassing the 270 votes required for a White House victory.

This victory in Arizona restores the state to the Republican camp after Joe Biden won it in 2020 and represents Trump’s second win there since his initial 2016 campaign. During his campaign, Trump emphasized issues such as border security and economic stability, aligning Harris with inflation and unprecedented levels of illegal border crossings during Biden’s administration. His stance on these matters appeared to resonate with voters in Arizona, contributing to his success in the state.

Alongside Arizona, Trump clinched victories in other crucial swing states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Nevada. In 2020, Biden had defeated Trump by securing six out of these seven swing states, narrowly losing only North Carolina. Biden’s 2020 win brought him 306 electoral college votes to Trump’s 232, an inversion of Trump’s previous success. Trump’s victory in 2016 also saw him capturing 306 electoral votes in his race against Hillary Clinton.

The Associated Press reports that nationwide, Trump garnered approximately 74.6 million votes, or 50.5% of the popular vote, surpassing Harris’s 70.9 million votes, which accounted for 48%.

In Arizona’s closely watched Senate race, Republican Kari Lake trails Democratic candidate Ruben Gallego by a narrow margin. Lake, who has publicly disputed the legitimacy of Biden’s 2020 presidential win, was behind Gallego with 48.5% to his 49.5%, a gap of around 33,000 votes as of mid-morning on Saturday.

Other races within Arizona remain highly competitive, including the contest for the state’s sixth congressional district between incumbent Republican Juan Ciscomani and Democratic contender Kirsten Engel.

The broader election outcome signals a shift in power as Republicans appear to be nearing control of the House of Representatives, complementing their victory in the Senate. With majorities in both chambers, Republicans would be positioned to advance a comprehensive policy agenda, potentially focusing on tax and spending reductions, energy sector deregulation, and enhanced border security measures.

Trump’s Broadened Coalition and Key Gains Propel His Return to the White House

Donald Trump’s path back to the White House was marked by pivotal shifts among both small demographic groups and larger population categories, according to the AP VoteCast survey of over 120,000 voters nationwide. His electoral success hinged on retaining his core base—white voters, those without college degrees, and older voters—while also making gains among younger voters, Black and Hispanic men. Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, saw slight improvement, particularly with white, college-educated men in urban areas. However, these gains fell short in balancing her losses in other groups.

Trump’s Increased Share of the Youth Vote

Compared to 2020, Trump’s coalition included a larger portion of younger voters. Trump’s base grew primarily due to his ability to secure slightly more than half of voters over the age of 45, while Harris secured a comparable share of voters under 45. However, older voters remain a larger segment of the electorate, giving Trump an advantage since roughly 60% of voters in the 2024 election were over 45 years old. Although he retained a similar portion of older voters as in 2020, Trump managed to increase his appeal among younger voters. He captured nearly half of the under-45 demographic in 2024, a notable rise from the four in 10 he won in 2020.

This increase was even more pronounced among the youngest voters aged 18 to 29. Trump garnered support from nearly 46% of this age group, marking a significant increase from the 36% he had attracted in the previous election.

Support Among Voters Without a College Degree

Voters without college degrees continued to form a core part of Trump’s coalition, with approximately six in 10 Trump voters lacking a college education. A majority of voters in this election did not hold college degrees, and Trump held a strong lead among them, securing 55% of their support compared to Harris’ 40%. This outcome reflected a downturn for the Democrats since Biden nearly matched Trump among non-college-educated voters in 2020, drawing 47% compared to Trump’s 51%.

Trump’s success among non-college-educated voters was largely driven by gains among non-white men and younger voters without college degrees. Additionally, he drew more support from non-white women without a college degree than he had in the last election. In contrast, Harris retained the level of support that Biden had achieved among college-educated voters, who constituted 44% of the electorate, with the majority backing her. About four in 10 college-educated voters chose Trump, a figure that left Harris struggling to balance her losses among voters without college degrees.

Trump’s Standing Among White, Black, and Hispanic Voters

Trump’s 2024 coalition was primarily white, much like it was in 2020, yet it grew more diverse as he made gains among small but significant groups. Approximately three-quarters of the electorate consisted of white voters, with their support for Trump remaining stable at a national level. Notably, Trump made some inroads among Black and Hispanic voters, each group making up around 10% of voters in this election.

While Harris received support from roughly eight in 10 Black voters, this figure dropped from the nine in 10 Black voters who supported Biden in the last election. Similarly, although Harris secured more than half of Hispanic voters, this figure fell slightly from Biden’s nearly 60% share.

Trump’s outreach among young Black men eroded a crucial demographic for the Democrats, as about three in 10 Black men under the age of 45 supported Trump—a near doubling of his support from 2020. Additionally, young Latino men showed increased openness to Trump; around half of Latino men under 45 cast their votes for Harris, a dip from the six in 10 who supported Biden.

Urban, Suburban, and Rural Divide in Trump and Harris Support

Much like the last election, Trump’s strongest backing came from rural areas, whereas Harris saw her most concentrated support in urban centers. Nearly 45% of voters identified as suburban residents, with approximately half supporting Harris and 46% favoring Trump. Trump commanded about six in 10 voters from small towns and rural areas, while Harris received the same level of support among urban voters.

Education also played a role in shaping regional support. Trump made modest gains among urban voters without college degrees, as well as non-white voters in urban and rural areas. His support among white men without a college degree living in urban areas also rose, with around six in 10 backing him compared to just half in 2020.

In contrast, Harris made strides over Biden’s 2020 numbers among urban, college-educated white men. About two-thirds of this group supported her, an increase from Biden’s support among half of them in the last election.

Tesla Reaches $1 Trillion Market Value, Fueling Elon Musk’s Wealth Surge Following Trump’s Re-Election

Tesla’s market value surged past $1 trillion on Friday, marking the first time it achieved this milestone since early 2022. The electric vehicle giant, helmed by billionaire Elon Musk, rode a significant stock rally that followed Donald Trump’s re-election. This impressive performance reflects investors’ optimism regarding potential policies favoring the EV industry under Trump’s renewed administration.

Key Developments

Tesla shares experienced a sharp rise, jumping over 10% in intraday trading to reach nearly $330 before closing with an impressive 8% increase at $321. This growth extended Tesla’s three-day rally to a remarkable 28%, contributing to broader stock market gains fueled by Trump’s electoral success.

With this leap, Tesla’s market capitalization surpassed $1 trillion for the first time since April 2022, nearly doubling over the last six months, according to data from YCharts.

Impact on Musk’s Wealth

Elon Musk’s wealth surged to over $300 billion on Friday, the first time he’s reached this benchmark in more than two years. Friday’s stock performance added around $13 billion to Musk’s net worth, widening his lead over Oracle’s Larry Ellison, whom Musk considers a close friend, by a substantial $70 billion.

Tesla Stake and Stock Options

Musk remains Tesla’s largest shareholder, with a 13% stake valued at about $130 billion. Additionally, he holds another 9% stake currently under appeal in Delaware court regarding a stock option bonus, which Forbes factors into Musk’s valuation at a discounted rate of 50%. Tesla shares still remain about 25% lower than their peak value of $415 in late 2021, when Musk’s net worth also peaked near $320 billion.

Musk, a known Trump supporter, openly endorsed the former president in July, contributing about $130 million to Trump’s campaign. Musk’s alignment with Trump also brought him into the spotlight on the campaign trail, and he was notably seen at Trump’s victory celebration alongside Trump’s family. Discussions have circulated about Musk potentially joining Trump’s administration in a role the president-elect described as “secretary of cost-cutting.”

Factors Behind Tesla’s Surge

This week saw a notable uptick across the stock market, with the S&P 500 poised for its best week of the year. Other American auto giants, Ford and General Motors, also saw stock increases, rising by 7% and 8%, respectively. However, Tesla stands out, benefiting from potential policy advantages linked to Trump’s administration.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives outlined several key areas where Tesla could see gains under Trump’s leadership in a recent client note. According to Ives, one potential policy change could involve the removal of federal tax credits for electric vehicles, which could allow Tesla to enjoy a “clear competitive advantage” as smaller EV companies may face difficulties entering the market. Additionally, Trump-backed tariffs on Chinese imports could deter cheaper Chinese EV brands, further securing Tesla’s foothold in the U.S. market. Ives also speculated that Trump’s administration might expedite regulatory approvals for Tesla’s autonomous vehicle initiatives, streamlining the company’s path to innovation.

Tesla’s strong performance reflects market expectations that Trump’s pro-industry policies may yield significant advantages for major U.S.-based automakers, with Tesla well-positioned to capitalize on potential regulatory and market shifts.

Expectations about Harris and Trump as president

Voters overall are divided in their predictions about how Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump would perform as president – with negative expectations outweighing positive ones for both candidates. And while majorities of voters see both Trump and Harris as bringing change to Washington – though more say this about Trump than Harris – they are also split over whether that change would have positive or negative effects.

Would Trump and Harris be above or below average presidents?

Voters’ predictions for a Harris or Trump presidency

Voters are more likely to say each of the presidential candidates would be poor or terrible presidents than to say they would be good or great at the job.

More voters today say Trump would be a “good” or “great” president than say this about Harris (41% vs. 36%). But similar shares of voters say each would be a “poor” or “terrible” president (48% say this about Trump, 46% about Harris).

Views of a potential second Trump presidency are more polarized than views of a potential Harris presidency: Voters are more likely to say Trump would be great than to say this about Harris (22% vs. 14%). But they’re also more likely to say Trump would be terrible (38%) than to say the same for Harris (32%). Voters are more likely to predict Harris would be an “average” president (18% say this about her, 11% about him).

Supporters’ views of their candidate

While most supporters of both candidates offer positive predictions about how their candidate would perform as president, Trump supporters are more likely to say a potential Trump presidency would be good or great than Harris’ supporters are to say this about her.

  • 84% of Trump supporters say he would be a good or great president, including 46% who say he would be great. Just 13% say he’d be an average president.
  • 73% of Harris supporters say that she would be a good (44%) or great (29%) president, while 24% say she’d be an average president.

Very small shares of each candidate’s supporters (just 2% each) say their candidate would be a poor or terrible president.

Supporters’ views of the opposing candidate

About nine-in-ten among both Harris supporters (91%) and Trump supporters (89%) predict that the opposing candidate would be a poor or terrible president. Harris supporters are particularly likely to say Trump would be a terrible president (76% say this). By comparison, 67% of Trump supporters predict Harris would be terrible.

Who would bring change – for good or bad – to Washington

Most voters say Trump will change Washington but are split over whether that will be good or bad

An overwhelming majority of registered voters say that Trump would change the way things work in Washington, but they are fairly divided over whether that change would be for the better or for the worse.

While 41% say Trump would change things for the better, a somewhat larger share (48%) say he would change things for the worse. Relatively few (10%) say that he would not change things much either way.

In contrast, three-in-ten voters say Harris would not change things much either way in Washington, while 41% say she would change things for the worse and 29% say she would change things for the better.

Harris and Trump supporters have different opinions on whether their candidate would change the way things work in Washington:

  • 40% of Harris supporters say that Harris would not change the way things work much in Washington, while 59% say she’d change things for the better.
  • 86% of Trump supporters say Trump would change things for the better. Just 12% say he would not change things much.

Overwhelming shares of both Harris (92%) and Trump (83%) supporters say the opposing candidate would change things in Washington for the worse. But Trump supporters are more likely to say Harris would not change things much (16%) than Harris supporters are to say this about Trump (6%).

Harris presidency: Biden’s policies versus a new direction

Nearly six-in-ten voters (58%) expect Harris to continue President Joe Biden’s policies, while about four-in-ten (41%) expect her to take the country in a different direction.

  • Among the 58% who say Harris would continue Biden’s policies, far more say this would be a bad thing (41%) than say it would be a good thing (16%).
  • Those who say she’ll take the country in a different direction are more likely to say this would be good (30%) than bad (10%).
Most voters say Harris would continue Biden’s policiesHarris supporters

More than half of Harris supporters (58%) say she would take the country in a different direction – and they nearly unanimously view this course positively.

About four-in-ten Harris supporters (41%) say that she would continue Biden’s policies and most of this group (33%) say doing so would be a good thing for the country.

Trump supporters

Conversely, an overwhelming majority of Trump supporters (76%) say Harris would continue Biden’s policies – and this group nearly unanimously sees that as bad for the country. Only about a quarter of Trump supporters (23%) say Harris would take the country in a different direction – and most of this group (19%) say that would be a bad thing.

Have Harris and Trump clearly explained their views on issues?

When it comes to several major issues, voters are fairly divided on whether the candidates have clearly explained their policies and plans, with two notable exceptions.

  • 75% of all voters say Harris has clearly outlined her views on abortion, including 93% of her supporters and 59% of Trump backers. About six-in-ten voters (61%) also say Trump has been clear about his views on abortion.
  • 70% of all voters say Trump has clearly explained his policies and plans for addressing illegal immigration. Nearly all of his supporters (94%) and about half of Harris’ supporters (48%) say Trump has been clear about his plans on this issue.
Most voters say both candidates have made their abortion policies and plans clear, and that Trump has been clear about his plans for addressing illegal immigration

At least half of each candidate’s supporters say their candidate has clearly outlined their policies and plans for each of the policy domains asked about in the survey. But no more than a quarter of each candidate’s supporters say the other candidate has been clear about their policies and plans – with the exceptions of both candidates’ abortion policies and Trump’s policies on immigration.

Trump supporters are somewhat more likely than Harris’ to say their candidate has been clear on issues, while also being less likely to say the candidate that they oppose has clearly outlined their positions.

Addressing the concerns of supporters versus all Americans

Vast majority of voters say the candidates should address the concerns of all Americans

Both Harris (89%) and Trump (86%) supporters overwhelmingly say that, if their candidate is elected, they should focus on addressing the concerns of all Americans – even if it means that some of their supporters will be disappointed.

Only 10% of Harris supporters and 14% of Trump supporters say that their candidate should focus primarily on the concerns of those who voted for them without worrying too much about the concerns of those who did not.

These opinions closely mirror those of Biden and Trump supporters in 2020.

Views of whether the next president will work with the opposing party

Voters’ views on whether Harris and Trump, if they win the election, will work with the opposing party

A 55% majority of voters say it is likely that Harris will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins. A much smaller share (37%) say it is likely Trump will work with Democrats if he wins.

Majorities of each candidate’s supporters believe it is at least somewhat likely that their candidate will work with the opposition on important issues facing the country:

  • 91% of Harris supporters believe it is very or somewhat likely she will work with Republicans in Washington if she wins, including 38% who say this is very likely.
  • 70% of Trump’s supporters think he’d be at least somewhat likely to work with Democrats if he wins. Just 19% say this is very likely.

In 2016 – the last time this question was asked leading up to an election – voters were more likely than they are today to say Trump would work with Democrats if he won (45% said this was at least somewhat likely).

Voters’ assessments about whether Harris would work with Republicans are on par with their beliefs about a potential victory for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Ticket-Splitting Voters Shape Key Senate Races While Supporting Trump’s Presidential Win

Duane Canther, a 66-year-old union worker in Michigan, reflects a growing group of voters who split their ballots in recent elections. Although Canther supported President-elect Donald Trump, he backed Libertarian Joseph Solis-Mullen over the major party candidates in Michigan’s Senate race, which was narrowly won by Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers by just 0.4 percentage points. Trump, by comparison, led the presidential race in Michigan with a 1.4-point margin. Canther explained his choice, saying, “I voted just to say I voted for somebody. They say if you don’t vote you can’t complain.” He added, “I felt both of them were flipping back and forth on certain things,” referring to the main party Senate nominees.

Similar voting patterns were evident in Wisconsin, where Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin retained her seat despite Trump winning the state. “Ticket-splitting” voters played a significant role, as demonstrated in North Carolina, where Trump won, but voters chose Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein for governor. Trump also prevailed in Nevada, where Democratic incumbent Sen. Jacky Rosen defeated her Republican rival Sam Brown. Trump appears set to win Arizona, where Democratic Rep. Reuben Gallego is leading Republican Kari Lake in the Senate race.

Some critical exceptions to this trend included Republicans successfully ousting incumbent Democratic Senators Jon Tester in Montana, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania. Despite their losses, all three outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris in their respective states. Although ticket-splitting has diminished in recent decades due to increased partisanship, outcomes in key states indicate it remains influential. Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, remarked, “There are still differences between presidential and Senate races, and those differences broke in Democrats’ favor across these states.”

In these swing states, Democrats actively worked to separate themselves from President Joe Biden, whose approval ratings have been low. In Arizona, Gallego emphasized strengthening border security, while Rosen highlighted bipartisan efforts to upgrade Nevada’s infrastructure. Baldwin, in Wisconsin, focused on policies supporting farmers, and Slotkin stressed her commitment to American manufacturing in Michigan. Some experts argue that many Trump supporters either refrained from voting down-ballot or chose third-party candidates. Others contend that down-ballot Democrats swayed Trump voters by promoting a distinct image from the national Democratic Party.

Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, explained, “The Senate candidates are often well known to voters” due to intensive campaigns, which include extensive advertising. Burden noted that similar voter turnout across both presidential and Senate races indicates that a portion of voters deliberately chose candidates from opposing parties. He elaborated, “So voters in some places are making real distinctions to say this is not somebody who is aligned with Trump or represents him in the same way, or this is someone who has the state’s interest in mind in a way that other candidates don’t. And that really is a different story from one state to the next.”

Historically, split-ticket voting was more prevalent, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, when political parties were more ideologically diverse. For instance, although Ronald Reagan won a landslide in 1984, states he won, like Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, elected Democratic Senators. Similarly, during Bill Clinton’s re-election in 1996, Republican Senators were still elected in Clinton-carrying states such as Arkansas, Oregon, and Maine. As parties have become more polarized, voters have found it increasingly challenging to justify choosing candidates from both parties. Burden estimates that only about one in ten voters now split their ballots.

Today, some of the last remaining Senate Democrats from conservative states include Tester, Brown, and retiring West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who will be succeeded by Republican Sen.-elect Jim Justice. According to political scientists, split-ticket voters typically show lower political engagement, possess limited candidate knowledge, lack strong party affiliation, and often decide late. Burden pointed out that these voters are more influenced by individual candidates’ performance rather than national politics, stating, “They’re much more responsive to who the individuals are and to their performance in office and much less susceptible to the Washington style of defining politics.”

While Trump’s victory did not hinge on split-ticket voters, their behavior shows the limits of his appeal in certain regions. He would have still achieved the 270 electoral votes necessary to win without Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, or Arizona, all states where Democratic Senate candidates won or are leading. If Trump had also lost North Carolina, the electoral map would have shifted, favoring Harris.

Ticket-splitting is also more common in gubernatorial races. Maryland’s former Republican Governor Larry Hogan, who served from 2015 to 2023, led a heavily Democratic state but lost his Senate race to Democrat Angela Alsobrooks. Voters in Maryland also chose Harris for president.

The Democratic Senate candidates’ victories will determine the scale of the Republican majority in the upper chamber. It is projected to be between 52 and 55 seats. A smaller majority would limit Republicans’ legislative leverage, requiring bipartisan support to overcome the 60-vote threshold needed to counter a filibuster. As Burden noted, “Ticket splitters are more casual voters, but they end up being the ones who make a big difference.”

Kamala Harris Concedes, Pledges Peaceful Transition as Trump Prepares for Second Term

In one of the most intense presidential elections in U.S. history, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris conceded defeat to Republican President-elect Donald Trump, ending a hard-fought campaign for the White House. Speaking to her supporters for the first time after the results, Harris, the outgoing Vice President, committed to a peaceful transition of power, a promise underscored by indirect references to Trump’s previous reluctance to leave office following his defeat in the 2020 election.

“While I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuelled this campaign,” Harris told the crowd gathered at Howard University, her alma mater. Her supporters, visibly emotional, listened as she affirmed her continued faith in America’s promise despite the disappointing outcome. “My heart is full today—full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve,” she said, expressing appreciation for her supporters’ efforts throughout the campaign.

While acknowledging the election results, Harris stressed her personal disappointment: “The outcome of this election is not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for. But hear me when I say: The light of America’s promise will always burn bright.” She emphasized that the ideals and principles she advocated during the campaign would endure beyond the election.

In an effort to inspire hope amidst the difficult news, Harris invoked what she described as “a law of history,” referencing the belief that “only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.” She continued, “I know many people feel like we are entering a dark time, but for the benefit of us all, I hope that is not the case. America, if it is, let us fill the sky with the light of a brilliant, billion stars. The light of optimism, of faith, of truth and service.” Harris encouraged her supporters to hold onto hope and stand together with optimism and resilience.

She also urged her followers to accept the election results and come to terms with the outcome. “Folks are feeling and experiencing a range of emotions right now, I get it. But we must accept the results of this election,” she remarked, acknowledging the challenges her supporters might face in accepting the outcome but emphasizing the importance of democratic norms.

Harris disclosed that she had spoken with Trump earlier in the day to assure him of her administration’s cooperation in the transition process. “I also told him that we will help him and his team with their transition and that we will engage in a peaceful transfer of power,” Harris stated, underscoring her dedication to a smooth handover.

Meanwhile, Trump addressed his own supporters in a victory speech, promising a renewed focus on his campaign pledge to “Make America Great Again, again.” The 78-year-old Republican thanked his campaign team and his voters for their unwavering support, calling his triumph “magnificent.” Trump’s victory was clinched with wins in key battleground states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, among others. These decisive victories underscored the electorate’s attention to critical issues such as the economy, immigration, inflation, and healthcare.

In the lead-up to his return to the White House for a second term, Trump spoke of his confidence in reviving America’s fortunes and building on his previous policies. His return to the presidency after his controversial exit in 2020 marks a significant chapter in U.S. politics, with a historic comeback for a former president.

Current President Joe Biden also reached out to Trump by phone, with plans to address the nation on Thursday (Eastern Time). In his conversation, Biden congratulated Trump on his victory and expressed his commitment to a peaceful and cooperative transition process. According to a senior White House official, Biden reiterated the importance of unity and invited Trump to meet with him in the White House. “President Biden expressed his commitment to ensuring a smooth transition and emphasized the importance of working to bring the country together. He also invited President-elect Trump to meet with him in the White House,” the official noted. The two teams are expected to schedule a specific date for the meeting soon.

Trump’s inauguration will mark him as the 47th President of the United States, a position he last held before a contentious departure four years ago. His return to office underscores the impact of his continued influence and his enduring appeal among his base, as well as the broader American public’s division on key issues shaping the nation’s future.

Shift in Indian American Support Shines Spotlight on Usha Vance Amid Republican Victory

Usha Chilukuri Vance, born and raised in California, represents the deep-rooted connection of Telugu-speaking Indians in America, with nearly 200,000 people from the community residing in the state. Her connection to India has taken on new significance following the recent U.S. election, which has seen her husband, JD Vance, become the Republican candidate for Vice President. The importance of her Telugu heritage and the influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics is highlighted by the fact that celebrations and prayers were conducted in Indian villages in support of both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Political Support Echoes in Indian Villages

Although separated by thousands of kilometers, the election in the United States resonated in two villages in India, each with its own connection to the candidates. In Tamil Nadu’s Thulasendrapuram village, where Kamala Harris’s maternal ancestry is rooted, residents held special prayers for the Democratic candidate. Thulasendrapuram, the village of Harris’s mother Shyamala Gopalan, reverberated with chants and hymns as villagers rallied in support of Harris, whose mother emigrated from Chennai to America.

Conversely, prayers were also held in Andhra Pradesh’s Vadluru village, the ancestral hometown of Usha Chilukuri Vance’s family, for JD Vance and his campaign. With JD Vance married to Usha, an American-born woman of Indian heritage who shares ties with Andhra Pradesh, the Republican campaign stirred enthusiasm in her ancestral land. Usha’s family emigrated from Andhra Pradesh, with her parents working as professionals in the United States—her father an engineer and her mother a biologist. Her faith remains a core part of her life, and she practices Hinduism; she has even influenced her husband to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle, showcasing the cultural bridge between their backgrounds.

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance: Iconic Figures of the Indian-American Narrative

As Harris praised her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, for her “courage and determination” in moving to America alone at just 19, parallels were drawn with Usha Vance’s own journey alongside her husband, JD Vance. Usha met JD Vance while studying at Yale Law School, and their relationship flourished. The couple eventually married in a traditional Hindu ceremony, blending their faiths and traditions.

For many Indian Americans, particularly those in California, where Telugu is widely spoken, Usha Vance’s prominence brings new visibility to their community. Although JD Vance’s candidacy might appear surprising given the historical Democratic allegiance among Indian Americans, Usha’s active role and strong connection to her cultural roots make her a significant figure within the Indian-American diaspora, particularly for Telugu speakers.

Usha Vance’s Influence in Her Husband’s Career

Usha Vance has played a central role in JD Vance’s political life, frequently supporting and advising him on his political journey. The New York Times reports that the two organized a group at Yale Law School to explore themes of “social decline in white America,” illustrating her involvement in his early career. Usha has gained professional experience as a litigator, beginning her career at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, a prestigious law firm where she worked in both San Francisco and Washington, D.C., from 2015 to 2017. Later, she clerked for the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 before returning to Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in January 2019.

The couple’s partnership has been instrumental to Vance’s career, and JD Vance often speaks of Usha as his “partner in every sense of the word.” Her support has helped him navigate the challenges of political life, and her influence has contributed to his rise within the Republican Party. This shift has aligned the Telugu community and the broader Indian-American base with a renewed interest in Republican politics, marking a distinct shift in the typically Democratic-leaning Indian-American electorate.

Changing Political Landscape Among Indian Americans

The shift in Usha Vance’s prominence coincides with a broader political shift within the Indian-American community. The “Indian Americans at the Ballot Box” survey, conducted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, underscores this change, showing a slight increase in Republican support among Indian Americans. The survey indicates that 57% of Indian Americans now identify as Democrats, a drop from 66% in 2020, while those identifying as Republicans have risen from 18% to 27%.

During the 2020 Presidential election, Indian Americans overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidate Joe Biden, with 68% casting their votes for him compared to 22% for the Republican incumbent, Donald Trump. However, by 2024, support among Indian Americans had shifted, with approximately 60% favoring the Democratic Party led by Kamala Harris and 30% aligning with Trump. This change highlights the evolving political preferences within the Indian-American community, particularly as more Indian-American men lean towards the Republican Party, whereas Indian-American women tend to favor the Democratic Party.

The Rise of Republican Support Among Indian Americans

Although the majority of Indian Americans still support the Democratic Party, the slight shift towards Republican support reflects a diversification of political views within the community. This change is not merely a shift in party allegiance but also signifies the expanding influence of Indian Americans in U.S. politics, as they navigate a spectrum of political choices that reflect a growing sense of agency within the community.

The 2024 election cycle reveals that Indian Americans, historically steadfast in their support for the Democratic Party, are now reconsidering their affiliations. As Republicans welcome an increasing number of Indian Americans, especially among the younger generations, prominent figures like Usha Vance play a key role in representing this change.

Two Faces of the Indian-American Dream

Kamala Harris and Usha Vance symbolize the diversity and resilience of the Indian-American experience. While Harris, with her maternal Tamil Nadu heritage, has become a symbol for Democratic supporters, Usha Vance represents a new alignment for Indian Americans with the Republican Party, particularly among Telugu-speaking communities. Each woman embodies a distinct aspect of the Indian-American narrative, yet together they highlight the contributions and accomplishments of this diverse community within the U.S. political landscape.

For the Telugu-speaking population, which has grown significantly in recent years, Usha Vance’s presence in American politics resonates as a point of pride. Donald Trump’s victory has brought renewed focus to Usha, especially among Telugu Americans in the U.S., who celebrate her influence and her husband’s achievement.

A Community Reflects on its Political Identity

The recent Republican victory, symbolized by Usha Vance’s rise, reflects a significant cultural and political shift within the Indian-American diaspora. Andhra Pradesh and Telangana’s increasing immigrant numbers have bolstered Republican support, showing a community keenly aware of its influence and willing to embrace diverse political identities. The desi focus in America, once firmly behind Kamala Harris, has begun to include figures like Usha Chilukuri Vance, whose heritage and professional success provide a fresh lens for examining the political landscape.

Both Kamala Harris and Usha Vance, with their respective ties to Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, offer a rich dual narrative for Indian Americans, showcasing how the community has navigated, contributed to, and flourished within the United States. The evolution of the Indian-American political base mirrors the community’s own journey in America—adaptable, resilient, and increasingly influential across the political spectrum.

Trump vs. Harris: A Presidential Race No One Predicted

The 2024 U.S. presidential election presents a scenario that few would have imagined years ago. Donald Trump, after a dramatic fall from grace, has clawed his way back to lead the Republican Party, and Vice President Kamala Harris has emerged from political obscurity to secure the Democratic nomination. It’s an election where history has been made repeatedly, creating an air of unpredictability around the outcome.

Trump, once considered unlikely to regain political traction following his departure from the White House and two impeachments, is now the Republican nominee. Harris, who has endured a low-profile term as vice president, was unexpectedly thrust into the limelight when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, endorsing her as his successor. For both candidates, it has been a journey defined by unlikely comebacks and controversies that have further polarized the nation.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse remarked on the surreal nature of this election: “If someone had told you ahead of time what was going to happen in this election, and you tried to sell it as a book, no one would believe it.” Newhouse emphasized the energizing yet divisive nature of the campaign, hoping it would ultimately lead to a better America.

For Trump, the Republican path was complex but achievable. Despite facing significant opposition within his own party and severe legal challenges, his resilience surprised many political analysts. After Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump’s encouragement of his supporters led to a violent storming of the U.S. Capitol, many Republicans distanced themselves. They anticipated that other figures, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, might emerge as viable alternatives. Yet, Trump’s influence persisted, with the party ultimately failing to fully abandon him.

In the year following his announcement to run against Biden, Trump encountered four major legal indictments. Two of these cases related to his alleged attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, while another involved mishandling classified documents. A New York court convicted Trump of falsifying business records in May, making him the first U.S. president to face criminal conviction. Even so, his political momentum was largely unaffected, and his supporters rallied around his cause, viewing his legal troubles as evidence of a biased system.

Trump’s campaign was fueled by widespread frustration over inflation and the issue of border security. He criticized Biden’s age and mental fitness, despite only a four-year age difference, and pointed out the administration’s struggles. These concerns resonated with many voters, lending credibility to Trump’s campaign. On July 13, during a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, which ended with him rallying his supporters while injured. The incident became an iconic image of his resilience, bolstering his support among Republican voters.

While Trump’s resurgence dominated headlines, Harris experienced a turnaround of her own. She was initially seen as a likely replacement for Biden’s vice-presidential candidate but lacked a solid base due to her low-profile performance and limited influence. However, Biden’s unexpected decision to step aside in favor of Harris changed everything, giving her an opportunity to reshape her political identity. “We are not going back,” Harris declared, framing her campaign as a push for progress and inclusivity.

Her evolution as a leader began in June 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Harris became a vocal proponent of abortion rights, a stance that resonated strongly with a significant portion of the electorate. Her bold move to show solidarity with expelled Tennessee lawmakers protesting for gun control further showcased her willingness to champion progressive causes.

Following Biden’s announcement, Harris moved swiftly to consolidate support within the Democratic Party. By the time she formally accepted the nomination, her team had launched an aggressive campaign focused on progressive policies. In her only debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris promoted plans to restore abortion rights and aid small businesses, contrasting with Trump’s call for economic protectionism and divisive rhetoric on immigration. Trump accused her of being “the worst vice president in the history of our country,” a claim that added fuel to an already intense election season.

The vice president’s campaign has benefited from her increased connections with influential local figures and communities. Since stepping into her new role, Harris has worked to position herself as a capable leader, emphasizing both her vision for America and her role in advancing equality and social justice.

Despite these distinct campaign strategies, the race between Trump and Harris remains tight. Pundits and pollsters continue to scrutinize every shift in public opinion, knowing that even minor fluctuations could determine the election’s outcome.

Harris Campaign Gains Momentum in Final Days Amid Tight Race Against Trump

Vice President Kamala Harris and her team are confident about their standing in the last hours of the presidential race, fueled by recent signs of support from undecided voters and a surprising poll in Iowa showing Harris leading in a traditionally Republican stronghold. After a period of concern, as former President Donald Trump seemed to gather momentum, the Harris campaign is now optimistic.

A critical shift has emerged in Harris’s favor, with data suggesting an advantage among last-minute deciders, especially women, which could prove pivotal in the election outcome. “Vice President Harris looks to be in a strong position going into Election Day,” remarked Jamal Simmons, Harris’s former communications director. “The data is leaning in her direction and she’s got the gait of a winner.” Simmons also observed, “People are ready to turn the page on the Trump era.” His views echo the optimism of Democrats who saw Harris’s rise in popularity following her nomination, though the campaign has faced ups and downs since then.

Democrats grew concerned as Harris’s economic messages appeared to struggle in key “blue wall” states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. But recent data, alongside favorable signs from late-breaking voters, has restored optimism. A major turning point occurred after a Trump rally in New York City where a comedian’s comments about Latinos seemingly backfired, causing Trump to lose support, according to campaign focus groups.

As of late last week, Harris’s team reported strong internal polling, showing her leading among a crucial group of battleground-state voters who decided on her in the campaign’s final days. This momentum was further bolstered by an Iowa poll conducted by The Des Moines Register/Mediacom, showing Harris at 47% compared to Trump’s 44%. Although Iowa leans conservative, the Harris team views this lead as an indicator of her potential success in other battleground states. A strategist close to the campaign noted, “Even if she doesn’t win Iowa, it’s a good bellwether for other states like Michigan and Wisconsin and maybe Pennsylvania.” The strategist highlighted that Harris’s support among women and older voters could lead her to victory.

Additional evidence of Harris’s rising support came from a New York Times/Siena poll that reported her leading Trump in several battleground states. Harris held slight advantages in Nevada (49% to Trump’s 46%), North Carolina (48% to Trump’s 46%), and Wisconsin (49% to Trump’s 47%). Georgia was nearly tied, while Pennsylvania and Michigan were neck and neck. The only state where Trump led was Arizona, where he was ahead with 49% to Harris’s 45%.

An NBC News poll on Monday underscored Harris’s strong lead over Trump on abortion, with a notable 20-point advantage. Harris also polled better on representing middle-class interests, an area of concern for many voters.

Democratic strategist Fernand Amandi, who was involved in former President Barack Obama’s Florida victories in 2008 and 2012, observed a shift in mood among Democrats in recent days. Amandi attributed the shift to Harris’s favorable trajectory and suggested that Trump’s harsh rhetoric may have influenced voters’ sentiments. At a recent event, Trump had made controversial remarks about former Rep. Liz Cheney, who supports Harris. Trump referred to Cheney as a “war hawk” who deserved gunfire, prompting significant backlash. “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” Trump said at the Arizona rally, while on stage with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “Let’s see how she feels about it when the guns are trained on her face.” Trump later clarified, saying he intended to comment on Cheney experiencing combat, not a firing squad.

During a Pennsylvania rally, Trump continued his combative tone, expressing regret about his departure from office in 2020. He also described Democrats as “demonic” and suggested that a gunman aiming at him should also target the “fake news.” These statements have raised concerns within the Harris camp. Amandi stated, “It’s all very chaotic and disturbing, and it’s confirming all the worst fears coming out of the Harris campaign about him.”

Despite the growing optimism within the Harris camp, some Democrats remain cautious. One strategist observed that while energy seems to have shifted toward Harris, the race remains close with polls within the margin of error. Additionally, NBC polling revealed that two-thirds of voters feel the country is on the wrong track. Trump holds a lead over Harris on the economy, polling at 51% to her 41%, and on managing the cost of living, with 52% supporting Trump compared to 40% for Harris.

Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland reflected this uncertainty, commenting, “We’re certainly not the heavy favorites… but we do think we have momentum on our side.” Cardin highlighted the natural anxiety that accompanies high-stakes elections. “There’s real concern about this election. When you have that, you’re going to be always nervous. Even if you were the heavy favorite, you would be nervous.”

Amandi, while sensing Harris’s growing momentum, stopped short of declaring optimism. “I’ll feel optimistic when the networks call 270,” he stated, referring to the number of Electoral College votes required to win the presidency.

With just hours until the election, Harris’s campaign has reason for cautious optimism, thanks to signs of support from crucial demographics. However, the close nature of the race and the high stakes keep both sides on edge as the final results await.

American Voters Prepare for 2024 Presidential Election as Tight Race May Delay Results

Americans are casting their votes in a tightly contested presidential election on Tuesday, with polling hours beginning to close at 18:00 EST (23:00 GMT) and wrapping up at 01:00 EST (06:00 GMT) on Wednesday. Despite previous elections where results were called within hours, this year’s competitive race between Democratic Vice-President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump may require additional time before a winner is declared. In past elections, winners have been named by late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning, but this year’s close competition could delay media outlets from projecting a definitive victor.

The razor-thin margin of victory in some states may also lead to recounts. For instance, Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state, mandates a recount if the margin between candidates is less than 0.5%. In the 2020 election, Pennsylvania’s margin was only slightly above 1%, highlighting how close this year’s results could be. Legal disputes are also anticipated, with more than 100 lawsuits filed before election day, primarily by Republicans questioning voter eligibility and management of voter rolls.

Delays in results could also be exacerbated by election-related disruptions, such as issues at polling sites. However, in certain areas like Michigan, the speed of vote counting has improved since 2020, as fewer mail-in ballots were cast compared to the pandemic election period.

Historically, results for most presidential races have been declared within hours. For instance, Trump was confirmed as the 2016 winner by 03:00 EST on election night, and in 2012, Obama’s reelection was projected before midnight. However, the 2000 election serves as a notable outlier; the battle between George W. Bush and Al Gore extended over five weeks and was ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court, which ruled to halt Florida’s recount, securing Bush’s win.

This election is expected to hinge on outcomes from seven key swing states where both Harris and Trump have viable chances of victory. Early voting turnout has been exceptionally high, breaking records in states like Georgia, where election officials estimate around 75% of ballots will be counted within the first two hours after polls close. North Carolina’s votes, on the other hand, are expected to be available by night’s end. Pennsylvania may take at least 24 hours for a sufficient number of votes to be tallied to determine a winner, while Michigan’s results are anticipated late Wednesday. Wisconsin could provide early data after its polls close at 21:00 EST, though a final outcome may not be available until the next day.

In Arizona, preliminary results might be reported as soon as 22:00 EST, but Maricopa County, the state’s largest, warns that full results might not arrive until early Wednesday. The situation in Nevada could be even more prolonged, as mail-in ballots postmarked on election day are accepted until 9 November.

Election analysts caution against interpreting early vote counts as definitive, noting that in 2020, initial results favored Trump before mail-in ballots boosted Biden’s totals. This led to Trump’s subsequent false claims that the election was “stolen.” Experts predict similar shifts may occur this year, with a possible “red mirage” favoring Trump or a “blue mirage” suggesting an early lead for Harris. According to the University of Florida’s Election Lab, over 83 million Americans have voted early, with women constituting 54% of these voters—a demographic that may benefit Harris. However, Republican turnout in early voting has also risen significantly, indicating a less predictable trend.

The process of tallying votes usually starts with those cast on election day, followed by early and absentee ballots, challenged votes, and finally military and overseas ballots. Local election officials, some appointed and others elected, conduct canvassing to verify and process each ballot. This meticulous process involves comparing cast ballots with active voter lists, checking for any ballot damage, and resolving inconsistencies. The votes are then fed into electronic scanners to be tabulated, though some cases may require manual recounts or verification. Strict regulations govern every state and county, including who can oversee the canvassing and how partisan observers are permitted to monitor vote counting.

After every valid ballot is included, the electoral college process begins, determining the presidency based on electoral votes rather than popular votes. Each state awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the majority, a result confirmed after electoral college meetings on 17 December. On 6 January, the newly convened US Congress meets to count these votes and formally confirm the next president.

Following the 2020 election, Trump refused to accept defeat, calling on supporters to protest at the Capitol on the day Congress certified Biden’s win. Trump also pressed Vice-President Mike Pence to reject the results, though Pence declined. Despite attempts by some congressional Republicans to overturn Biden’s victory, reforms since then have clarified that the vice president lacks the authority to discard electoral votes unilaterally. Still, concerns persist that efforts to contest the 2024 results could arise at local and state levels, especially given that Trump and Republican leaders, including running mate JD Vance, have refrained from unequivocally committing to accept the election outcome.

If the election results in a tie—an outcome that would yield each candidate 269 electoral votes—then the House of Representatives would vote to select the president in a procedure called a contingent election, while the Senate would choose the vice-president. Although such a situation has not occurred in roughly 200 years, it remains a constitutional possibility.

The new president will be inaugurated on 20 January 2025, marking the 60th such ceremony in US history. During this event, the president-elect will pledge to uphold the Constitution before delivering their inaugural address on the grounds of the US Capitol.

Historic Showdown in 2024 Presidential Election: Harris and Trump Stand Poised to Make History

As the 2024 presidential race nears its conclusion, America is on the brink of witnessing a historic moment, regardless of the outcome.

Should Vice President Kamala Harris win, she would become the first woman to hold the highest office in the United States. In contrast, if former President Donald Trump emerges victorious, he would be the second president in history to secure a return to the White House after a failed reelection bid, and the first former president to achieve this despite a criminal conviction.

ABC News presidential historian Mark Updegrove reflected on the weight of this election, stating, “You hear inevitably every four years that this is the most important election of one’s lifetime, but there is no question in my mind that this is the most important election of my lifetime, and probably the most important since 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency and the fate of the country was in the balance.” Updegrove attributed the extraordinary nature of this election to both the historic backgrounds of Harris and Trump, and the ideological stakes of the race, which he described as a pivotal moment for American democracy and global diplomacy.

The political spectrum is polarized by the stark differences between Harris and Trump. “I’ve never in my life, again, seen such a marked difference in what the candidates stand for and the policy positions they have articulated,” Updegrove noted, pointing to Trump’s unconventional stance on key issues as a departure from traditional U.S. leadership.

The 2024 election cycle itself has been one of unprecedented twists and turns. President Joe Biden initially launched his reelection campaign in April 2023 and dominated the primary season with uncontested wins across all states. However, a highly anticipated and early debate with Trump in June turned the tables, as Biden’s performance led to increased concerns about his age, especially among his Democratic supporters. In July, after mounting pressure from his party, Biden stepped down, subsequently endorsing Harris—already the first Black and South Asian woman to serve as vice president—to succeed him as the Democratic nominee. By early August, Harris officially took the helm of the Democratic ticket following a virtual delegate voting process.

During her acceptance speech in Chicago, Harris spoke about the overarching themes of her campaign, calling it a “fight for America’s future.” Political science professor Brandon Rottinghaus from the University of Houston remarked on the extraordinary nature of Harris’s rise to the top of the ticket, observing, “It is exceptionally rare for presidential candidates to swap certain roles in the middle of the campaign, period. It was a wild moment for an already crazy cycle.”

Rottinghaus highlighted the historical significance of Harris’s candidacy, suggesting that her potential victory would symbolize a landmark achievement in the U.S. fight for diversity and gender equity in leadership roles. “If she wins, it will break barriers that the nation has been fighting to break since the 1920s. For a nation that has been more challenged in terms of race relations to nominate and then elect a Black woman is, by any counts, progress,” he added.

Despite the potentially groundbreaking nature of her candidacy, Harris has largely refrained from making her race or gender a focal point in her campaign messaging. Jim Kessler, co-founder of the center-left think tank Third Way, described this as a prudent approach. “That’s smart because voters aren’t interested in making history so much as being happy with where the country is going, and the voters feel very mixed,” Kessler noted.

In a recent interview with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, Harris addressed the subject of the history she could make. Harris candidly stated, “I am fully aware of my gender and race. And I know that it will be very significant in terms of the glass that will be broken. But I do not expect that anyone is going to vote for me because of my gender or race. It has to be because I earn their vote with a plan to make their lives better.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s third White House bid, announced in November 2022, has been riddled with legal battles and controversy. Over the course of his campaign, Trump has been indicted four times, with one case resulting in a conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments to an adult film actress during his 2016 campaign. Trump has vowed to appeal the conviction.

Despite these challenges, Trump emerged victorious in nearly every Republican primary state, fending off over a dozen rivals, including his former vice president. Most competitors dropped out before the first voting event in Iowa, and Trump was officially nominated by the Republican Party in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, not long after surviving an assassination attempt where he was shot in the ear. Updegrove characterized Trump as a figure of resilience, saying, “He’s a study in resilience and defiance, resurging despite two impeachments, Jan. 6, criminality and consistently flouting democratic norms during his presidency and as a candidate.”

If elected, Trump would join Grover Cleveland in the rare position of serving non-consecutive terms, making him the only U.S. president since 1892 to achieve such a feat.

Reflecting on the impact this election will have on future generations, Rottinghaus commented on the unique dynamics of both major parties in the race. “The Democrats were hungry for a win and despite having an incumbent president who was otherwise performing well needed to energize the ticket dramatically,” he observed. He also pointed out that Trump’s firm grip on the Republican Party essentially ensured his nomination, an outcome rarely seen in modern political history. “On the Republican side, Trump co-opted the Republican Party in a way that made his nomination inevitable. I don’t think we ever had a situation like this in the modern era,” Rottinghaus added.

The final days of the race are drawing intense attention to an election season that has defied expectations on every front. As Americans prepare to cast their ballots, they do so with a palpable awareness of the potential to shape the nation’s future and, as some political analysts argue, secure or redefine the democratic values of the United States.

Nara Lokesh, Minister in the Government of Andhra Pradesh Lays out His Vision for a New Resurgent India During his Address at ITServe’s Synergy 2024 in Las Vegas

A rising star in Indian Politics, Honorable Nara Lokesh, Minister of Information Technology, Electronics and Communications , and the Human Resources Development Departments in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the General Secretary of the Telugu Desam Party, was the Chief Guest at Synergy 2024, the flagship annual conference organized by ITServe Alliance, the largest association of IT Services organizations.

Delivering the keynote address on October 29, 2024 at Synergy by ITServe, the voice of all prestigious IT companies functioning with similar interests across the United States, Honorable Nara Lokesh, Minister of Information Technology, Electronics and Communications and the Human Resources Development departments in the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the General Secretary of the Telugu Desam Party lauded ITServe as it has evolved as a resourceful and respected platform to collaborate and initiate measures in the direction of protecting common interests and ensuring collective success.

A true visionary with forward-thinking, Nara Lokesh, a rising star in Indian politics told the over 2,500 CEOs of small and medium-sized companies in the United States, who had come to be part of the historic Synergy 2024 that he believes the data revolution is here, and Andhra Pradesh is well-poised in terms of harnessing that revolution.

Earlier in his welcome address, Jagadeesh Mosali, President of ITServe Alliance said, “ITServe Alliance originated in response to the unfair practices of The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services imposed on small and medium businesses, which are the economic engines of the country. We were the first in the nation to come up with an idea of an organization representing Information Technology professional Services of like-mind- ed business entrepreneurs. Through our PAC, ITServe has come a long way, especially visa-vis espousing our visibility and cause in the US Congress, introducing our very own HIRE ACT, talking to important key MOCs and Senators regarding our Bill, taking them into confidence and discussing a path to consolidate it with the EAGLE ACT.”

During his address to the ITServe delegates, Lokesh said, globally, close to $300 billion is being invested in data centers, and his government’s agenda is that we should bring over 100 billion of that to India, and bring the majority of that to the state of Andhra Pradesh. Vishakhapatnam, he said, stands out with AI education, and particularly with focus on an AI University. “They were really excited about figuring out the interactions of AI in governance, AI in politics, AI in healthcare, AI in entertainment. And like how the erstwhile Indian School of Business Model was, it was completely branching as to how you would love to do the same magic in the AI University and really create next-generation thought leaders and engineers, not only for Andhra Pradesh, but for the world.”

Lokesh said he has learned the importance of the need in building a strong team. “I think that’s very important because when I joined Heritage, we had a crisis. Things were not good. We were losing a lot of money because of our retail expansion. The diary was not bringing in that much profit. So, I had to decide early on, the direction or the trajectory of the business. Then I had to figure out whether the team members believed in that vision or not, and based on that, I had to make decisions. I think politics is all about that. Also. I think you need people who believe in your vision but also have the boldness to correct you when you are making mistakes. So in that sense, in terms of building your team, building the leadership in both organizations is something that I find very similar.”

After he graduated from Stanford University, Lokesh returned to India and took on the role of the Director at Heritage. He ran both private enterprises and then entered into politics.

Describing the differences between running a private enterprise and being elected government official, Lokesh had this to say: “They’re quite stark and quite different. In the private sector, when you are the boss, you decide the direction, and you understand the journey. The results speak for themselves. If one month you miss something, you know where to correct it. I think in politics, you only get elections once every five years at the state level, so it gets very difficult to figure out the right trajectory. It’s very important to remain grounded, meet people, hear from them, and understand whether what you are doing is right and whether what programs you are taking are meeting their aspirations or not. So for me, that was very, very important. I think both journeys are mutually exclusive.”

Recalling his experiences in politics and the road he has traveled, Lokesh reminded the audience of his journey in politics. “I’ve always broken the mold. Look, membership in the Telugu Desam party was never a smooth affair. And in 2014, I chose that as my focus area. Similarly, in 2019 when I had to contest the election, there was always a debate on which seat I should contest. You know, generally, per political legacy and people, second-generation, and third-generation politicians choose a safe seat. I chose Mangalagiri. Here is a seat that we have not won since 1985.” Despite being defeated in the Mangalagiri Assembly seat in 2019, Lokesh continued his work in the constituency and gained the public’s trust.

Regarding his loss in the Assembly elections in 2019 and recontest in 2024, Lokesh said, “A lot of people told me, why not contest from a safe seat. And I told them, I know, to take an easy route or exit that’s accepting defeat, and I am not going to. So I contested in the Mangalagiri Assembly seat again in 2024 and I am really proud to say that I won with the highest margin that Andhra Pradesh has ever seen, which is over 91,000 margin.

With his triumph, the TDP won the key Mangalagiri seat for the first time after nearly four decades. Lokesh is being credited for the TDP’s resurgence in Andhra Pradesh. “To be honest, this victory was certain, but I think this kind of mandate took everyone off guard. This mandate has increased our responsibility. It’s a great responsibility on our shoulders. We take it with all humility. The people of Andhra Pradesh have many aspirations, and as a government, we need to be focused on delivering on those aspirations. So, I think we are going to meet midway in terms of delivering on that.”

While discussing the Ministry formation in Andhra Pradesh, Lokesh offered to take on the Human Resource Development Ministry, which is one of the toughest ministries, with a lot of trade unions. “And I love the challenge, and it’s a great opportunity for me to shape the next-generation leaders, thinkers, engineers, scientists, doctors. So I always believe as leaders, you should take a road less traveled and transform it in your own way. And that is what I have learned in my political journey.”

Learning from past mistakes, Lokesh said, the current Ministry headed by the TDP is looking at business processes, and re-engineering the government, and I am looking at, how can we deliver seamless governance in the hands of people, in the hands of citizens. How do you make politicians and officers relevant in day-to-day governance, in any day-to-day citizens’ lives. So that’s where I believe technology will play an important role. But it is also important to transform our processes and re-engineer the processes, and this is what you will see happening in Andhra Pradesh in the upcoming months.”

Son of Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu, the young and rising star of Indian politics, while referring to the lessons learned from his da, he said, “What I learned from my leader is to be very patient and passionate. If you look at his entire political journey, he has had great highs and great lows. He takes his highs just as he takes his lows. And for me, that has been a great lesson, and that’s what I’ve learned from him.”

Lokesh said, that a new state like Andhra Pradesh is presented with a unique opportunity, which is to decentralize development and not to center development around one city or one ecosystem. Way back in 2014, Mr. Chandrababu Naidu had a clear vision of which district should do what, and that’s why KIYA came to Anantapur, TCL, Foxconn came to Chittor and Bello, and where Amravati is like our state capital. From day one, Lokesh said, he strongly believed that Vishakhapatnam should be the state capital because it has the right ingredients. “Now let’s talk about what are those right ingredients. It has amazing connectivity. It has great engineering colleges and amazing talents. And I jokingly keep saying that if Bangalore were to marry Goa and have a child that would be Vishakhapatnam, it’s such a beautiful city, with a gorgeous ecosystem, and I truly believe that for it not only to survive, but to flourish Vishakhapatnam has all the right ingredients of a state capital.”

Recalling his childhood and his relationship with the legendary N T Ram Rao, Lokesh said, “NTR is larger than life, and from my childhood, that’s all I remember about him. He was a tall personality there, but he had a very emotional connection with all his grandchildren, and he personally named all of us. So, you know, I got my name because of him, and all my cousins have their names because of him. He had a lot of personal attachment with all of us, but honestly, we were just too many of us for him to spend time with and nurture aspirations and ambitions. But he was very humble. And every birthday, you know, we used to go meet with him, spend time with him. I remember this so well. That is the way he would show his love and affection for all of us. He has left behind a great legacy for us to lead from the front and to take it forward.”

Young Lokesh shared with the audience his works and interactions with the rural Andhra. “I had a great chance to interact with farmers across segments. So, I met with Palm oil farmers, Paddy farmers, Mango farmers, Date Farmers, Banana farmers, and Mirchi farmers. You know what was fascinating for me is that they’re working hard, they are investing money ahead of time, and they are not sure in the end, whether are they going to make money or not, and they are doing this every crop cycle. So the way I looked at it, I said, you know, there are two parts of this equation. One, we need to reduce the cost of production. Two, how do we grow commodities and variants of our commodities that we can take to the globe.”

Lokesh said that the Andhra state can play a very important role in guiding farmers. “There is a lot of work that we can do as a government in terms of guiding farmers, giving not just subsidies alone, but inputs, and even strengthening it with research stations and ensuring that the optimal output and productivity comes from the respective farm. So for me, that’s of great interest and passion.”

He went on to add, “It is very fascinating that these are interventions you will see at a policy level that will come up. And I truly believe that the Royal Sima region particularly has a great opportunity to leapfrog in agriculture. It has amazingly fertile soil and just giving water to drip and giving extension to the appropriate horticulture crop, I think can truly transform agriculture in that sense. And the last bit I’d like to add is technology plays an important role, more so from the government’s ability to map which commodities are being grown and in what quantities and how should government be prepared, in terms of sale price hikes or slumps.”

Lokesh has been credited with ushering in new technologies in all his work, with focus on transformation of the rural Andhra Pradesh. In May 2018, he won the Business World magazine “Digital Leader of the Year” at the Businessworld Digital India summit in New Delhi, recognizing the best utilization of technology in governance. The same year, the Kalam Centre for Livable Planet Earth and Sustainable Development recognized Lokesh’s efforts in the successful integration of technology in rural governance and awarded the innovation award to Andhra Pradesh in the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development category.

Sharing his thoughts on how Technology can play an important role in rural communities, Lokesh said, “Technology has changed all our lives. India has been lucky. We jumped the PC era and went straight to smartphones. There are more smartphones in India than there are toilets. That’s a known fact. I think that presents a unique opportunity in terms of governance. I think a government’s ability to forecast that, prepare for that, and guide and advise farmers for that, I think will be very important. And that’s something that we are working on this time.”

Lokesh shared a greater vision for Inda to be the leader in world economic growth. According to him, India needs to work on two fundamental things. Number one, India requires a lot of policy intervention at the national level to attract greater investments to our nation. See, today, honestly, it’s not just about competing amongst ourselves as states, but we are also competing with other countries. You know, I am competing with Vietnam to attract electronics investments. I am competing with Ecuador on Aqua exports. I am competing with other countries on Agri commodities. So it is very, very important that we create a very conducive environment for medium, large corporates, global corporates, to look at India. Second, it’s no longer about the ease of doing business. It is about the speed of doing business. So all the business process re-engineering that we are doing in our state is to focus on the speed of doing business.

“We will compete with other states, and we will create a very conducive environment in Andhra Pradesh in terms of attracting investments and grounding those industries,” Lokesh said.

Among the challenges his state faces, Lokesh pointed to how you translate the vision of the Chief Minister down to the grassroots life functioning. So, the Chief Minister has a clear vision to attract investment. At every meeting, he talks about how many jobs we create. “But the problem that I see, even at the grassroots level, at the field level, is there is still the need for greater momentum. The tendency is to tell how not to do things, and that’s the challenge that we struggle with. So we are in the process of bringing about that change, institutional change among the officers, among the political system in Andhra Pradesh to thrive and be very focused on getting investments and creating local jobs.”

On his ambitions to play a national role as leader of India, any role beyond Andhra Pradesh in the coming months and years, Lokesh was very candid. “Politics is one great field where you can positively or negatively influence people’s lives. Being a third-generation politician, I see this as a great opportunity to transform things. There are amazing aspirations at the grassroots level that it is important that we meet those aspirations and deliver and after that, it is for people to decide where I should be. So, you know, we are here. We are here to serve the people. We are here to create amazing policies and investments, create jobs, create ecosystems, and then it is for people to decide whether I should be a Delhi politician or a state politician.”

His advice to everyone, who wants to enter into politics has been, “first, you need to settle down financially. That is very, very important. Be financially stable, and come into politics to serve people. That should be a true calling, nothing but that, when that is clear, come to politics. And the only way that can be clear is when you have financial security when you don’t need to depend on politics for any income.”

Lokesh pointed out how his party has been attracting lots of new first-generation leaders to be part of the government. “I call ourselves as a university. We have this ability to create leaders who want to lead. We create leaders. We give people the opportunity to lead from the front. And if you look at it this time in the 160 seats that we contested, close to 70 of them are actually first-timers. If you look at it as an alliance, 17 out of the 25 ministers are first time ministers. So I think that’s what makes TDP unique.”

Lokesh said, “I think you should take life as it comes. Never carry stress home. There is no need to carry stress. So I believe that the stress of work should be left outside your door. When you go home. You should spend time with your family, no second thoughts about it. What I’ve realized is, when you are stressed and you make decisions, you end up making a lot of mistakes. When I feel a little bit of stress, I should want to breathe, and that de-stresses me, makes me, calm, and that enables me to make good decisions. If you want to achieve greater things in life, and if you want to leapfrog, then you will have to make certain sacrifices. And it’s not just you, it’s also your family. If there are no sacrifices, you really cannot achieve what you want in life.”

Lokesh said that one of the agendas with which his government working is, “how do we double the per capita income of Telugu people here in the US and all across the world. And one thing we want to work with IT services, and how do we skill up all our IT professionals in the US and across the world.” Lokesh commented on the renewed interest among non-resident Telugus and “this greater commitment, that let’s do it now, I see that in everyone. We really want to work hard and really do good for our state and as a Minister and part of a delegation, we are really excited to take all of you back and showcase what you can do best and what are areas that together we can work on in developing the state of Andhra Pradesh.”

According to Lokesh, AI is an area of great interest for us as a state of Andhra Pradesh and is open for doing business. “We are ready. We will match it with the speed of doing business. I am leading a delegation in which we have a very young officer who is the CEO of the economic development board. As you said, all of you have an interest not only in it. It could be tourism, it could be education, it could be healthcare. And as a state, we are ready. We are ready to make this an amazing journey, and together, I believe that all of us can transform the state of Andhra Pradesh.”

For more details, please visit: www.itserve.org

Vice President Harris Holds Slim Lead Over Trump in Final Pre-Election Polling

With Election Day just around the corner, Vice President Kamala Harris has taken a slight national lead over former President Donald Trump, as indicated by the latest YouGov presidential model released on Friday. According to YouGov’s final assessment, Harris is outpacing Trump by a narrow 3-point margin, capturing 50 percent of voter support compared to Trump’s 47 percent.

The election projection grants Harris a lead with 240 electoral votes, leaving her Republican opponent close behind at 218 votes, while 80 electoral votes are still considered toss-ups. This latest model shows a slight shift from the October 16 analysis, which projected Harris with 250 electoral votes to Trump’s 219, with only 69 electoral votes classified as uncertain.

In highlighting the states that are expected to be pivotal in the outcome, YouGov identified Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia as the primary battlegrounds, notably excluding Michigan from this list.

In Nevada, Harris narrowly leads with 50 percent of support, while Trump follows closely at 48 percent. However, Arizona presents a reverse scenario, with Trump leading Harris by an identical 3-point margin.

North Carolina and Pennsylvania are showing an even tighter race, with Harris maintaining a slight edge of 49 percent to Trump’s 48 percent in each state. Wisconsin also reflects a slim lead for Harris, with the vice president polling at 49 percent compared to Trump’s 47 percent.

The polling in Georgia tips slightly in Trump’s favor, with the former president leading by a single point, polling at 49 percent to Harris’s 48 percent.

Further corroborating this close race, The Hill/Decision Desk HQ’s polling index puts Harris marginally ahead on a national level, capturing 48.3 percent of support compared to Trump’s 48 percent.

The national poll, conducted between October 25 and October 31, included responses from 57,784 registered voters and has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

Democrats Face Tight Odds in Pursuit of White House and Full Congressional Control in 2024 Elections

Two prominent betting companies, Betfair and Star Sports, are now offering odds on the Democrats sweeping the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives in the upcoming November 5 elections. Betfair’s odds for the Democrats to capture all three branches are 6/1, giving them a 14.5 percent chance, while Star Sports rates a Democratic sweep at 7/1, or 12.5 percent. The stakes are particularly high as the 2024 presidential race remains exceptionally close, with polls suggesting a narrow lead for Republican candidate Donald Trump over Democrat Kamala Harris.

Polling website 538 recently released an analysis of the race, revealing Trump has a slight advantage, with 48 percent support versus 46.7 percent for Harris. Due to the Electoral College system, though, winning the popular vote doesn’t guarantee an overall victory, and 538 currently assigns Trump a 52 percent chance of winning, compared to Harris’s 48 percent.

If the Democrats succeed not only in retaining the White House but also in capturing both chambers of Congress, it would substantially strengthen Harris’s legislative capabilities, allowing for smoother passage of her policy proposals. Betfair spokesperson Sam Rosbottom explained, “Even if the Democrats manage to eke out a win against Donald Trump, their legislative agenda could be hampered if they are unsuccessful in the Senate and the House of Representatives.” He highlighted the importance of both chambers, especially as Democrats have been keen on reclaiming ground in the House after losing their majority there in 2022. “We’ve crunched the numbers and give the Democrats 6/1 odds of winning the presidency as well as both chambers in Congress. This gives them only a 14 percent chance of doing so, compared to the 45 percent chance that the Republicans have of winning all three,” he added.

The situation in Congress is particularly tense. Currently, the Democrats hold a fragile majority in the Senate, with 51 seats compared to 49 held by Republicans. The GOP, which has been eager to regain control of the upper chamber after falling short in the November 2022 elections, sees significant opportunities this election cycle. William Kedjanyi, a political betting analyst with Star Sports, suggested that Republicans could secure control over both chambers and maintain their influence in the House. “Republicans could have more to celebrate next week, with the prospect of seizing control of the Senate, as well as maintaining their majority in the House of Representatives. We price a GOP clean sweep at 6/4, with the Democrats an unlikely 7/1 to complete a federal government trifecta,” he noted.

One critical Senate race involves the West Virginia seat held by Joe Manchin, an independent who initially ran as a Democrat. This seat is widely seen as a likely win for Republicans. However, there is also a high-profile race in Texas, where Democratic Representative Colin Allred is challenging Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Polls indicate Cruz holds a modest lead, varying from 1 to 7 points, but this seat remains on the Democratic radar as a potential pick-up.

In November 2022, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives, leading to a change in leadership from Nancy Pelosi to Republican Kevin McCarthy, and later to Mike Johnson. A recent study by *The Economist*, dated October 31, estimates that Democrats have a 54 percent chance of retaking the House in the upcoming election, while Republicans hold a 46 percent probability of retaining their majority.

To gain further insight, Newsweek attempted to reach out to the Harris campaign and the Democratic Party, though no responses were received by the time of publication.

As the election approaches, these odds reflect the high stakes for both parties and the uncertainty that continues to characterize the 2024 race.

Stock Market Hints at Potential Democratic Win, Despite Betting Markets Favoring Trump

Wall Street executives, political bettors, and cryptocurrency traders are increasingly wagering on former President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Yet, the stock market appears to suggest an alternate outcome. The U.S. stock market has surged recently, with the S&P 500 index climbing over 10% since August, an increase that could indicate stability in the current administration rather than a shift in power.

The S&P 500, while not a direct reflection of the broader economy, has historically served as a strong predictor of electoral outcomes. Over the past 96 years, it has accurately forecasted the incumbent party’s success or failure in all but four presidential races. As a general trend, a drop in the S&P 500 before an election hints at investor uncertainty, likely associated with the prospect of a new administration. Conversely, a rise signals stability, which the market often associates with the continuity of the current party in power. Based on the recent rise in the S&P 500, some analysts believe Vice President Kamala Harris, who replaced President Joe Biden on the Democratic ticket, may secure victory.

“The market’s making a call for Harris to win,” says Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial, which has studied the correlation between stock movements and election outcomes. “When there’s more certainty about the incumbent party winning the White House, we know for the most part the policies they’ve [installed]. There’s just a level of comfort that the market has with that certainty.”

With the presidential race appearing as a close contest, voters are searching for clarity on the likely winner. This uncertainty has fueled interest not only in public opinion polls but also in election-betting markets and other indicators. Notably, election-betting markets are currently leaning toward Trump, as are other unconventional predictors, like the “Redskins Rule” and the outcome of the World Series.

“People are just naturally going to feel anxiety,” explains Justin Grimmer, a professor of public policy at Stanford University. “All of these things, I think, are ways for people to try to relieve this anxiety they have about this election.”

However, the S&P 500’s reliability as a predictor remains controversial. Monica Guerra, head of U.S. policy at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, points out that the index is no “crystal ball.” She suggests that the year’s stock market gains may be attributed more to tech companies and the Federal Reserve’s measures against inflation than to election outcomes. Trump has also often credited himself for market gains, arguing that a potential return to office would continue to benefit investors.

Despite these doubts, the S&P 500’s history as a forecasting tool is difficult to ignore. The index, which represents the largest public companies in the U.S., has correctly anticipated the election outcome in 20 of the last 24 contests. For example, in 2016, the index dropped 2.3% before Election Day, reflecting the transition from Democratic to Republican leadership with Trump’s unexpected victory. “You were laughed at for even thinking about it,” Turnquist recalls of Trump’s 2016 win. “But the market was right.”

Nonetheless, the index has not always been accurate. Its performance in 2020 suggested Trump would defeat President Joe Biden. Despite this, many investors remain convinced that Trump is favored to win again in the upcoming election. Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller highlighted this sentiment on Bloomberg Television, noting that various factors—including the performance of bank stocks, crypto prices, and Trump’s social media venture—indicate optimism for a Trump victory. Trump Media, for instance, has seen its stock price surge by over 200% since it hit a low last month.

Additionally, a selection of stocks that stand to gain from a Trump administration has recently shown upward movement. Morgan Stanley released a report identifying a “Republican basket” of investments, which includes companies in energy, banking, and cryptocurrency. This Republican portfolio has outperformed a similar Democratic-focused portfolio by 10% over the year.

Guerra emphasizes that mixed signals within the market reflect a tight and polarized electorate. “Part of the reason why we have conflicting indicators right now is because of how divided the electorate is and how tight it is in these swing states,” she notes. “This is a true toss-up. You can see that dynamic play out both in the markets and the economy.”

In a statement, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt underscored Trump’s poll dominance, adding that Republicans are making significant strides in voter registration and early voting compared to prior elections. “Voters know that Kamala Harris has destroyed our country, but President Trump will fix it — and that is why he is well-positioned for victory on November 5,” she asserted.

The Harris campaign did not provide comments in response.

Some experts, such as Reena Aggarwal, a finance professor at Georgetown University, remain skeptical of the S&P 500 as a comprehensive predictor. According to Aggarwal, the stock indexes today are less representative of the U.S. economy than they were in previous decades, mainly due to the outsized influence of tech companies. Additionally, the number of major private companies that are not publicly traded has grown, reducing the representativeness of public stock performance.

In past decades, the stock market better reflected the “broad economy,” as industrial and energy corporations with extensive workforces made up a more substantial part of the index. Now, tech giants dominate, leading to a disconnect between the stock market and the overall economy. “The market and the broader economy — there’s a disconnect,” Aggarwal points out.

For Stanford’s Grimmer, the historical link between economic indicators and presidential elections remains relevant but is ultimately limited. He warns against reading too much into patterns based on specific data points, noting that voters’ economic perspectives vary widely as Election Day approaches. Thus, the stock market may not be the best gauge of who will prevail.

“You can only use history so much,” Grimmer advises. “We’re just going to have to wait and find out. It’s a coin flip.”

Trump and Harris Locked in Tight Race as Election Day Nears

As Election Day approaches, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris remain locked in a close contest, with both vying for the crucial 270 electoral votes needed to secure the presidency. According to recent polling, neither candidate holds a decisive lead, and the battle for votes in swing states is especially fierce.

In key battleground states, Harris has a narrow lead in Wisconsin and Michigan, while Trump is leading by small margins in Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. The polling data from 538, as of Friday, suggests these races are within the margin of error, highlighting how close the contest remains. Past elections have shown, however, that polling does not always accurately predict election outcomes, leaving the final result still uncertain.

The latest data reveals several potential paths for each candidate to reach the necessary Electoral College votes and clinch the presidency. If the polls accurately reflect Election Day outcomes, Trump would emerge victorious in states where he currently holds slight leads, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona. This would give him a total of 287 electoral votes, putting him well above the required threshold. However, his lead in these states remains within 2.4 percentage points, making the results susceptible to polling errors.

Another possible scenario could favor Harris if the polls slightly understate her support. In that case, Harris could win by securing all electoral votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and even one electoral vote in Nebraska, which could bring her exactly to 270 votes. Such a path remains plausible, though it relies on her maintaining and potentially expanding her leads in these key states.

If Trump’s lead has been understated by polling, he could secure Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina, which would place him at 268 electoral votes, just two votes shy of victory. In this situation, winning Pennsylvania would push Trump past the 270 mark, enabling him to clinch the election.

So far, more than 65 million Americans have voted, which represents roughly 40% of the total turnout in 2020. Although the early voting data offers insights into voter demographics, it remains difficult to gauge who currently holds the advantage. Early voting records indicate a higher turnout among women voters, a demographic that the Harris campaign and Democrats have emphasized in recent days.

Moreover, data shows that 41% of early voters are registered Democrats, while 39% are Republicans. In contrast, during the same period in the 2020 election, registered Democrats made up 45% of early voters, with Republicans accounting for 36%. This shift could suggest a tighter race among early voters than in the previous election, though whether this trend will hold through Election Day remains to be seen.

Election Day Approaches: Polls Show Swing States Favoring Trump

As Election Day nears, with just one week left, the swing states are displaying a notable shift according to recent polls and betting odds. Pennsylvania has narrowly tipped back in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump, but the overall trend in other swing states tells a different story.

In the past two months, national polls have consistently indicated a lead for Harris, though this advantage has gradually decreased as Trump has made significant gains. Presently, he leads in five of the seven pivotal swing states that are expected to be crucial in deciding the outcome of the race.

While many states have historically leaned blue or red—like the 38 states that repeatedly voted for the same party between 2000 and 2016—certain states fluctuate from election to election. The battleground states of Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Wisconsin are currently in a tight race, making it difficult to predict an outcome.

Pennsylvania plays a critical role in securing victory for either candidate, as both Trump and Harris are vying for the state’s 19 Electoral College votes on Election Night.

Here is the latest snapshot of the polls and betting odds as we approach Election Day on Tuesday, Nov. 5.

Current Polling Leaders in Swing States

According to the ABC News project 538, Harris currently leads the national polls by a margin of 1.4%, with Harris at 48.1% compared to Trump’s 46.6%. However, in Pennsylvania, Trump holds a slight lead of 0.3%. The state of Arizona shows Trump ahead by 1.9%, while Georgia also has Trump leading by 1.6%. In Michigan, Harris leads by 0.5%. Trump has a narrow advantage of 0.2% in Nevada, while in North Carolina, Trump is ahead by 1.3%. Wisconsin is currently a tie, indicating that Harris’s lead has diminished since last week’s results.

The website 270towin presents a slightly different perspective, showing Harris leading the national polls by 0.9% over Trump. In Pennsylvania, Harris has managed to regain a slight lead over Trump by 0.3%. Arizona indicates Trump leading by 1.7%, and in Georgia, he has a lead of 0.9%. Michigan shows Harris ahead by 1.5%. Nevada shows Trump ahead by 0.3%, North Carolina has Trump leading by 1.1%, and Wisconsin shows Harris with a 0.4% advantage. It appears that Trump has gained ground since the previous week’s polls.

Real Clear Politics shows that national betting odds have slightly shifted in favor of Trump, who has a marginal advantage of 0.1% over Harris. In Pennsylvania, the odds favor Trump by 0.4%. Arizona has Trump ahead by 1.5%, while Georgia shows a 2.3% lead for Trump. Michigan indicates Trump is ahead by 0.2%, Nevada shows a 0.7% advantage for Trump, and North Carolina has him leading by 0.8%. In Wisconsin, Trump is favored by 0.3%. This trend reflects Trump maintaining a slight lead in all swing states as well as in national odds compared to last week’s polling results.

Betting Odds Indicate Trump’s Growing Popularity

Polymarket, a cryptocurrency trading platform, reveals strong betting public sentiment favoring Trump in the national race, with a significant 66.1% support compared to Harris’s 33.8%. In Pennsylvania, Trump is favored at 62%, with Harris trailing at 38%. Arizona shows Trump favored at 75% over Harris’s 26%. Georgia mirrors this trend, with Trump at 75% compared to Harris at 27%. In Michigan, Trump leads with 56% to Harris’s 46%. Nevada shows Trump favored at 68% over Harris’s 33%. North Carolina indicates Trump is favored at 73% over Harris’s 27%. Lastly, in Wisconsin, Trump is favored at 60%, with Harris at 42%. Across all states, the betting odds reflect a growing preference for Trump compared to the previous week’s polling data.

Assessing the Reliability of Election Odds and Polls

Historically, the betting favorite has lost only twice since 1866, according to The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization dedicated to providing analysis and commentary. However, assessing polling accuracy presents a more complicated picture, as different pollsters may target varied audiences, which can introduce higher margins for error.

Confidence in public opinion polling has waned following significant errors in the presidential elections of 2016 and 2020. Research conducted by Pew indicates that many polls underestimated the appeal of Republican Donald Trump during both elections.

The fluctuating dynamics in the swing states as Election Day approaches indicate a highly competitive race, and the changing odds reflect a landscape that could still shift significantly in the final days leading up to November 5. With Trump gaining traction in key battlegrounds, the outcome remains uncertain, and both candidates will need to focus their efforts strategically to secure victory in this crucial election.

US State Department Denies Reports of Expelling Indian Diplomats Amid Rising India-Canada Tensions

The U.S. State Department has dismissed rumors suggesting that Washington might be expelling Indian diplomats amid recent diplomatic strains involving India and Canada. During a Tuesday press briefing, State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller clarified that he was unaware of any such measures, affirming that the U.S. had not taken any steps to expel Indian diplomats.

“I am not familiar with this report that we expelled Indian diplomats…I’m not aware of any expulsion,” Miller stated.

These comments come after India’s recent action to recall six of its diplomats from Canada, who had been labeled as “persons of interest” in an investigation by Canadian authorities. This investigation was initiated after the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistani activist who was reportedly linked to secessionist activities in India. This incident has spurred diplomatic tensions between the two nations, and there have been concerns that the diplomatic fallout could have broader implications on international relations, including ties with the United States.

The U.S. State Department also addressed questions regarding Vikash Yadav, a former Indian government employee implicated in an alleged assassination attempt on Khalistani activist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun. The assassination plot, which was reportedly foiled, has drawn international attention and raised questions about Yadav’s potential extradition from the U.S. back to India. Miller refrained from providing specific details on this issue but pointed out that any extradition matter falls within the purview of the U.S. Department of Justice.

“I would refer you to the Justice Department on that when it comes to extradition. That’s a legal matter that we differ from DOJ. But I will tell you that we have been in dialogue with the government of India,” Miller explained.

According to Miller, a delegation from India had recently visited the United States to provide an update on their investigation into Yadav’s alleged role in the plot against Pannun. The U.S., in turn, provided details regarding its own investigation, underscoring its commitment to ensuring accountability.

“They sent a delegation here two weeks ago to directly brief US government officials on the status of their investigation, and we briefed them on the status of our investigation. We made it clear that at that meeting, there will be real accountability,” Miller emphasized.

On October 18, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took further action by placing Yadav on a wanted list, releasing a poster that identified him as being involved in the failed assassination attempt. The FBI’s move indicates the seriousness of the allegations against Yadav and highlights ongoing security concerns related to transnational plots.

Meanwhile, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed that Yadav, who was named in the indictment issued by the U.S. Justice Department in connection with the assassination attempt, is no longer employed by the Indian government. This statement implies a degree of separation between the Indian government and the actions of its former employee, though the matter has continued to generate considerable attention internationally.

As the diplomatic implications of these cases unfold, the U.S. remains clear that its stance towards India is not affected by such developments, and no measures have been taken to expel any Indian diplomats.

Trump Campaign Faces Internal Struggles as Election Approaches

As the United States heads toward the November 5 presidential election, a fiercely contested race unfolds between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris. Recent online claims suggest that all is not harmonious within Trump’s campaign as he vies for a second term.

Political commentator Brian Krassenstein recently shared on the platform X that a message allegedly from “Trump Campaign insiders” implies Trump himself doubts his victory. According to the post, Trump’s supposed “only true path to victory” involves creating the perception that he is winning, making any challenge to the results seem credible. However, Krassenstein quickly dismissed the authenticity of the message, noting that the chat could be “a random text message sent by anyone on the planet to anyone on the planet,” similar to questionable claims from Harris’s campaign that speculate President Biden fears Harris may struggle to secure a win.

In his commentary, Krassenstein argued that Trump is relying heavily on claims of election rigging, a tactic he previously used. He emphasized the strong integrity of America’s election process, calling it “one of the safest on the planet.” He commented, “Seems as if things are pretty bad in the Trump campaign right now. I can’t believe that Trump appears to once again be relying on the notion that the election is rigged to try and sneak his way back into the most important office on the planet.”

Adding to these campaign challenges are reports of tension between Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump. Allegedly, Trump expressed frustration over Ivanka’s limited involvement in his current campaign, purportedly even using an offensive term to describe her due to her reduced public support. In contrast to her significant role during Trump’s first presidential term, Ivanka and her stepmother, Melania Trump, have mostly kept a low profile this season, making only sporadic public appearances.

Krassenstein’s post cited insiders who claimed, “He is also apparently using the B-word to describe his own daughter Ivanka Trump because she hasn’t spent enough time campaigning for him this election cycle.” This distance from the political scene marks a significant shift for Ivanka, who held a high-profile advisory role during Trump’s initial presidency but has since opted for a quieter, private life. Hindustan Times quoted a source stating, “She is very happy, living her best life. She has completely moved on from politics, and even though her dad is the leading Republican candidate this time, she really doesn’t care.”

According to OK! Magazine, an insider revealed that Ivanka had informed her father from the start of his campaign that she wanted no involvement. Reflecting on her past dedication, the insider noted, “During the first election, she wanted to support him and be a good daughter, dedicating four years to his administration, but she’s had enough. She doesn’t want to do it anymore.”

Indian Americans Show Strong Democratic Leanings in 2024 Election but Support for Republicans Rises

Ahead of the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 5, six in ten Indian American registered voters, or 61 percent, have expressed plans to vote for Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee and current Vice President, according to the Indian American Attitudes Survey (IAAS) 2024. Thirty-two percent intend to vote for her Republican opponent and former President, Donald Trump. Conducted between Sept. 18 and Oct. 15, 2024, the IAAS sheds light on the political inclinations and concerns of the Indian American community, a group that is both highly educated and economically influential.

The survey results reveal a steady Democratic loyalty among Indian Americans, though the community’s alignment has slightly shifted. Forty-seven percent identify as Democrats, down from 56 percent in 2020, while the number of Indian Americans identifying as Republicans has remained stable, and the share of independents has risen.

One of the survey’s most striking findings is a noticeable gender gap in voting intentions. Sixty-seven percent of Indian American women plan to vote for Harris, while only 53 percent of men share this preference. Conversely, a larger proportion of men, 39 percent, intend to support Trump, while 22 percent of women plan to vote for the former president. This divide is even more pronounced in different age groups: for voters over 40, 70 percent of women and 60 percent of men support Harris. However, among voters under 40, while 60 percent of women back Harris, men in this age range are split almost evenly between Harris and Trump.

The survey also highlights lukewarm views among Indian Americans toward prominent Indian American Republicans, such as Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Usha Vance, wife of Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance. Notably, there is a trend of asymmetric polarization in these perceptions: Democratic-leaning respondents rate these Republicans more negatively than Republicans rate Democratic figures.

Among policy priorities for Indian Americans, abortion has emerged as a key concern, especially among Democrats and women. Abortion and reproductive rights have become pivotal in this election cycle, ranking as the community’s second-most important issue after inflation and tied with jobs and the economy. Other concerns include healthcare, climate change, and U.S.-India relations, each resonating with substantial portions of the community.

The survey underscores that the Republican Party’s disadvantage among Indian Americans extends beyond personalities and aligns closely with policy issues. Many Indian Americans report that they distance themselves from the Republican Party due to its perceived intolerance toward minorities, its stance on abortion, and its association with Christian evangelists. As a result, many Indian American Democrats identify more with their party’s progressive values on these issues.

Indian Americans are an increasingly significant voting bloc due to their rapid population growth and high socioeconomic status. Between 2010 and 2020, the Indian American population grew by 50 percent, with over 70 percent of foreign-born members arriving in the U.S. after 2000. The survey categorizes Indian Americans as “high propensity” voters, with 96 percent of registered respondents indicating they will vote in the upcoming election. Given the community’s median household income of $153,000—more than double the national average—Indian American voters are highly sought after by both parties.

Economic concerns, especially inflation, are central for Indian American voters, with 17 percent identifying inflation as their top priority. Employment opportunities follow closely, emphasizing the community’s focus on financial stability. Additionally, U.S.-India relations hold significant importance, particularly aligning with the Democratic Party’s stance on international diplomacy. Nevertheless, Republicans, including Trump, are increasingly positioning themselves on this issue, reflecting a notable departure from previous campaigns.

Kamala Harris’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate has noticeably boosted enthusiasm among Indian American voters. Harris, who has Indian heritage, is the first woman of South Asian descent on a major U.S. party’s presidential ticket, a milestone that resonates strongly within the community. According to the survey, 51 percent of respondents reported feeling more motivated to vote due to her nomination, while only 12 percent reported a decrease in enthusiasm. This support is especially pronounced among older and immigrant Indian Americans, who view Harris as a symbol of cultural pride and American identity.

However, Harris’s candidacy does not inspire equal enthusiasm across all segments of the community. Younger, U.S.-born Indian Americans, while recognizing her heritage, are more likely to prioritize her policy stance over her background. Many respondents supportive of Harris cited her liberal and progressive policies as primary reasons, demonstrating a preference for policy alignment over ethnic representation.

Indian Americans’ growing involvement in U.S. politics reflects a blend of cultural heritage and civic engagement. Although the community predominantly supports the Democratic Party, the Republican Party’s increasing appeal, particularly among younger, U.S.-born Indian American men, signals a possible shift in voting patterns. The survey notes that “Republican economic policies and a focus on national security resonate with segments of Indian American voters, particularly men under 40.”

Whether these trends signify a temporary shift or an enduring realignment in the political landscape remains uncertain. However, with their high voter turnout and significant representation, Indian Americans are positioned to be a defining force in future U.S. elections. The evolving political preferences within this community suggest that both major parties will continue to invest considerable effort in courting Indian American voters, a demographic that has proven to be influential both in numbers and in economic power.

High-Profile Names Surface in Jeffrey Epstein’s Court Documents

Over 100 high-profile figures, including former U.S. Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, former U.S. First Lady Hillary Clinton, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, and actor Leonardo DiCaprio, have been identified in court documents associated with Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted financier and sex offender.

A lawsuit filed in 2015 against Epstein’s former associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, resulted in a list of approximately 150 names, released by a New York judge. On Wednesday, the initial list became public, followed by a second list on Thursday night that included previously revealed names, and a third list made public on Friday.

The release has met with some objections from individuals seeking to withhold their identities.

Below is a rundown of the individuals named:

– Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend of Epstein, sentenced in 2022 to 20 years for sex trafficking

– Prince Andrew, son of Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

– Bill Clinton, former U.S. President

– Donald Trump, former U.S. President

– Hillary Clinton, former U.S. First Lady

– David Copperfield, American magician

– John Connelly, New York detective-turned-investigative journalist involved in the Epstein case

– Alan Dershowitz, well-known attorney

– Leonardo DiCaprio, actor known for his role in Titanic

– Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President

– Stephen Hawking, prominent theoretical physicist

– Ehud Barak, former Israeli Prime Minister

– Michael Jackson, iconic musician known as the “King of Pop”

– Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence pioneer

– Kevin Spacey, American actor

– George Lucas, American filmmaker

– Jean Luc Brunel, French modeling agency executive

– Cate Blanchett, Australian actress

– Naomi Campbell, British model

– Sharon Churcher, British journalist

– Bruce Willis, retired American actor

– Bill Richardson, former New Mexico governor

– Cameron Diaz, American actress

– Glenn Dubin, American investor

– Eva Andersson-Dubin, former Miss Sweden and wife of Glenn Dubin

– Noam Chomsky, linguist and political thinker

– Tom Pritzker, American business figure and philanthropist

– Chris Tucker, American comedian and actor

– Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, former spouse of Prince Andrew

– Robert F. Kennedy Jr., American politician and conspiracy theorist

– James Michael Austrich

– Juan and Maria Alessi, employees at Epstein’s Florida estate

– Janusz Banasiak, former manager of Epstein’s Palm Beach home

– Bella Klein, a former accountant at Epstein’s New York office

– Leslie Groff, Epstein’s former secretary

– Victoria Bean

– Rebecca Boylan

– Dana Burns

– Ron Eppinger, identified as a sex trafficker

– Daniel Estes

– Annie Farmer, accuser of Epstein

– Maria Farmer, sister of Annie Farmer

– Anouska De Georgiou, model who accused Epstein of assault

– Louis Freeh, former FBI Director

– Alexandra Fekkai, child of a celebrity hairstylist

– Jo Jo Fontanella, Epstein’s butler

– Virginia Giuffre, formerly known as Virginia Roberts

– Lynn Miller, mother of Virginia Giuffre

– Crystal Figueroa

– Anthony Figueroa, former boyfriend of Virginia Roberts

– Eric Gany

– Meg Garvin

– Sheridan Gibson-Butte

– Ross Gow, Maxwell’s press agent

– Fred Graff

– Robert Giuffre

– Philip Guderyon

– Alexandra Hall

– Joanna Harrison

– Shannon Harrison

– Victoria Hazel

– Brittany Henderson

– Brett Jaffe

– Forest Jones

– Sarah Kellen

– Adriana Ross, former assistant of Epstein

– Carol Kess

– Dr. Steven Olson

– Stephen Kaufmann

– Wendy Leigh, author

– Peter Listerman

– Tom Lyons

– Nadia Marcinkova

– Bob Meister

– Jamie Melanson

– Donald Morrell

– David Mullen

– David Norr

– Joe Pagano

– May Paluga

– Stanley Pottinger

– Detective Joe Recarey

– Chief Michael Reiter

– Rinaldo and Debra Rizzo, former employees of Glenn Dubin, an Epstein associate

– Sky Roberts

– Kimberly Roberts

– Lynn Roberts

– Haley Robson

– Dave Rodgers, Epstein’s private jet pilot

– Alfredo Rodriguez, butler at Epstein’s Florida residence

– Scott Rothinson

– Forest Sawyer

– Doug Schoettle, investigator

– Johanna Sjoberg

– Cecilia Stein

– Marianne Strong

– Mark Tafoya

– Emmy Taylor, former personal assistant to Maxwell

– Brent Tindall

– Kevin Thompson

– Ed Tuttle

– Les Wexner, Epstein’s former business partner

– Abigail Wexner, wife of Les Wexner

– Cresenda Valdes

– Emma Vaghan

– Anthony Valladares

– Christina Venero, licensed massage therapist

– Maritza Vazquez

– Vicky Ward, investigative journalist

– Jarred Weisfield

– Sharon White

– Courtney Wild

– Daniel Wilson

– Mark Zeff, a New York decorator

– Alfredo Rodriguez, Epstein’s former household manager

– Dr. Chris Donahue, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Wah Wah, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Judith Lightfoot, therapist of Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Karen Kutikoff, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Carol Hayek, psychiatrist to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. John Harris, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Darshanee Majaliyana, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Mona Devansean, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Scott Robert Geiger, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Dr. Michele Streeter, medical provider to Virginia Giuffre

– Donna Oliver, physician assistant for Virginia Giuffre

Jeffrey Epstein, once connected to Wall Street elites, royalty, and Hollywood figures, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution. His death occurred in August 2019 while he was in U.S. custody awaiting trial on further sex crime charges.

Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump: Who Will Win the White House in 2024?

On November 5, American voters will head to the polls to choose their next president. Originally, this election was expected to be a rematch of the 2020 race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. However, the race took an unexpected turn in July when Biden ended his campaign and endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris. This shift has raised a major question: will the U.S. see its first woman president, or will Donald Trump return for a second term?

As election day approaches, we’ll track the latest polls and analyze how each candidate’s campaign is impacting the race.

National Polls: Who is Ahead?

Since Harris entered the race in late July, she has maintained a narrow lead over Trump in national polling averages, though the gap has fluctuated over the past months. Initially, Harris enjoyed a significant boost, reaching a nearly four-point lead by the end of August. Her numbers stabilized throughout September, even following the only debate between her and Trump on September 10, a widely viewed event that attracted almost 70 million viewers. However, recent polling indicates a tightening race as the gap between them has narrowed.

National polls, though indicative of a candidate’s popularity, don’t guarantee an election outcome. The U.S. presidential election operates through an electoral college system. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes proportional to its population, totaling 538 votes. A candidate must secure at least 270 to win the presidency. Consequently, the true battleground lies not in national support but in key swing states where both candidates have a viable chance of winning.

Battleground States: Who Leads Where?

In the crucial swing states, the contest remains extremely close. Polling averages show no clear frontrunner in these decisive states, which include Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Since Harris entered the race, the data has shown interesting trends in these states, though the limited number of state-level polls and their inherent margin of error complicate any definitive conclusions. In Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, for instance, both candidates have traded the lead since early August, with Trump pulling slightly ahead in recent weeks. In Nevada, Harris has held a slight edge.

In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Harris consistently led by two to three points since early August. However, polling in these states has also tightened significantly. Notably, Trump has taken a small lead in Pennsylvania, a state critical for both candidates due to its relatively high number of electoral votes among the swing states. A win in Pennsylvania could greatly improve either candidate’s path to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.

These three states were Democratic strongholds until Trump flipped them red in 2016, helping him secure the presidency. In 2020, Biden reclaimed them for the Democrats. Should Harris manage to hold these states, her path to the White House would be significantly easier. Her campaign’s gains underscore the changes since Biden left the race. On the day he withdrew, he trailed Trump by almost five points across the swing states and by 4.5 points in Pennsylvania alone. This trend shift highlights the importance of these battleground states and Harris’s appeal in those areas Biden struggled to secure.

How Polling Averages Are Created

The polling data in the graphics presented above are averages calculated by the polling analysis site 538, part of ABC News. To determine these averages, 538 gathers results from individual polls conducted by various polling firms across the nation and in swing states. Only polls from companies meeting specific quality standards—such as transparency about sample size, polling dates, and data collection methods—are included in these averages.

These standards ensure reliability to a certain extent, but all polls come with inherent limitations, which 538 addresses by applying a consistent methodology to create an average that ideally reflects overall trends.

Can the Polls Be Trusted?

Polls currently show Harris and Trump nearly tied across most swing states, suggesting an extremely close race. Given the small margins between them, it’s challenging to predict a winner based solely on current data.

Historically, polls have underestimated Trump’s support, as seen in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Polling companies have since adjusted their methods to better capture voter sentiment. They are now trying various approaches to make poll results more representative of the voting population’s composition. However, these adjustments are complex, requiring educated assumptions about voter turnout and other unpredictable factors that can only be tested once voters actually cast their ballots on November 5.

Bill Gates Reportedly Donates $50 Million to Nonprofit Supporting Kamala Harris’s Presidential Campaign

Bill Gates, one of the world’s richest individuals, has privately revealed that he recently contributed about $50 million to a nonprofit organization backing Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, according to a report by The New York Times. Despite the significant donation, Gates has not made any public endorsement of Harris, marking a departure from his usual approach of staying away from direct political contributions.

Gates, known for co-founding Microsoft, has long maintained a neutral stance in the political sphere. Throughout his career, he has refrained from making contributions that could associate him with specific candidates or political campaigns. Though he does not share a close personal relationship with Harris, Gates has previously expressed approval of the Biden-Harris administration’s climate change policies. According to sources speaking to The New York Times, Gates and his foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are increasingly worried about potential threats to family planning and global health initiatives should Donald Trump win the presidency again.

The report suggests that Gates is particularly concerned about the future of these programs, many of which have been critical to global health, under a potential second Trump administration. The former president has made it clear that he intends to reverse many of the current administration’s policies, raising alarm among those who support programs that benefit international health and family planning. Gates’s donation may reflect his growing recognition of the role political leadership plays in shaping the future of these global initiatives.

When asked to respond to the New York Times report, Gates did not directly confirm or deny the substantial donation to the Harris-aligned nonprofit. While he did not offer an explicit endorsement of Harris’s candidacy, Gates acknowledged the high stakes of the 2024 presidential election. He pointed out that he has always taken a bipartisan approach to his work, supporting initiatives that cross party lines. However, he emphasized that the upcoming election presents a unique situation, hinting that it may be one of the reasons for his decision to get involved in political giving at this level. “This election is different,” Gates reportedly said, underscoring the potential risks he sees with a Trump comeback.

Gates’s reluctance to engage directly in politics has long been noted, particularly by his Democratic allies. Some within his circle have tried to encourage him to become more involved in political donations over the years, but he has resisted. His reluctance has been shaped by his belief in maintaining a neutral position, especially given his role as a leading philanthropist and businessman.

However, Gates is said to be experiencing mounting pressure from within his own family, specifically from his children Rory and Phoebe Gates. Both of Gates’s children have reportedly become Democratic donors themselves, with Rory, in particular, playing an active role in Democratic fundraising efforts. They have been pushing their father to take a more visible stand in political matters, especially as the 2024 election approaches. This family dynamic may have contributed to his decision to donate to the Harris-supporting nonprofit.

Despite Gates’s recent donation, many of the wealthiest backers of Harris remain cautious about associating themselves too closely with her campaign. Some donors fear potential repercussions from Donald Trump, who has a history of publicly targeting those who oppose him. In his previous run for office, Trump was known for openly criticizing his rivals and threatening retaliation against high-profile figures who supported his political opponents. This lingering fear of retaliation has led some wealthy supporters to contribute anonymously or through less direct channels, avoiding public identification as Harris’s supporters.

The political landscape for the 2024 election appears to be more charged than usual, with high-profile figures like Gates stepping into the arena, despite personal reluctance or historical disengagement. Gates’s involvement in the Harris campaign—albeit in the form of a large financial contribution rather than a public endorsement—signals a shift in the strategies of traditionally neutral or apolitical philanthropists.

Many observers are interpreting Gates’s donation as a response to the broader implications of the 2024 election, particularly for global health and climate change initiatives. His foundation has long been at the forefront of funding programs that address health disparities, poverty, and family planning, both in the U.S. and globally. A Trump return to office could potentially disrupt or defund these programs, leading to what Gates and others view as dire consequences for international health systems.

While Gates has not definitively aligned himself with Harris, his donation could be seen as a vote of confidence in the current administration’s approach to tackling issues like climate change and global health. Gates has been vocal about the need for coordinated action on climate policy, praising the Biden-Harris administration for its efforts in this area. He has also spoken at length about the importance of addressing global health inequities, issues that are closely tied to the work his foundation has been engaged in for decades.

However, for Gates, the decision to donate to a campaign-related nonprofit may also be a reflection of his belief in the critical importance of family planning and health initiatives. These are areas where Gates has invested considerable time and resources, and a change in administration could pose a significant threat to the progress made in these fields. For someone like Gates, who has worked tirelessly on these issues through his foundation, the potential impact of the election may have been too important to ignore.

The report from The New York Times also highlights the increasing involvement of high-profile figures like Gates in shaping the outcome of the 2024 election, even if they are not traditionally associated with political donations. Gates’s decision to make such a significant contribution, despite his longstanding practice of staying out of politics, underscores the unprecedented nature of the upcoming election and the concerns many have about the direction the country might take.

For now, Gates continues to avoid a full public endorsement of any candidate, but his $50 million donation has certainly caught the attention of political observers. Whether Gates will continue to increase his political involvement as the 2024 election nears remains to be seen. However, his shift in strategy—driven by concerns over global health, family planning, and climate change—suggests that the stakes of this election are motivating even the most apolitical figures to take action.

Biden-Harris Administration Holds Virtual Briefing with AAHOA on Small Business Support

On Wednesday, the Biden-Harris Administration held a special virtual briefing for members of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association (AAHOA), the largest organization of hotel owners in the world. This exclusive session, arranged by the White House Office of Public Engagement, focused on significant issues affecting small businesses while providing updates on the current economic landscape.

The briefing brought together senior officials from the administration to discuss federal initiatives aimed at helping small business owners, particularly those in the hotel industry. Among the primary topics were efforts to improve access to Small Business Administration (SBA) loans, measures to enhance the supply chain, and steps to increase transparency around resort and junk fees—charges that impact the hotel industry and other small businesses.

Key officials in attendance included Kota Mizutani, Senior Advisor for Public Engagement at the White House; Dilawar Syed, Deputy Administrator of the SBA; Karlin Gatton, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy; and Monica Gorman, Special Assistant to the President for Manufacturing & Industrial Policy from the National Economic Council. They each highlighted how these federal efforts are designed to help small businesses navigate the challenges of today’s economy.

Kota Mizutani praised AAHOA members and small business leaders for their critical role in driving the U.S. economy forward. “As all three of our speakers today highlighted, a huge thank you to all the members of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, all the business leaders here who are putting in the work on the ground to make our economy run,” Mizutani said. “Thank you so much for all that you do.”

AAHOA Chairman Miraj S. Patel welcomed members to the virtual event, emphasizing the importance of the dialogue. “This briefing underscores how important AAHOA and its members are to the ongoing conversation around small business policies,” Patel said. “Having the opportunity to hear directly from senior government officials about these key issues is crucial as our members continue to navigate today’s evolving economic environment.”

During the briefing, the Biden-Harris Administration focused on several key issues of interest to hotel owners, with an emphasis on ensuring that small businesses have access to resources and support. Among the top priorities were improving access to SBA loans, addressing the challenges posed by supply chain disruptions, and enhancing transparency in resort fees and junk fees that affect the hotel industry. These efforts are aimed at ensuring that small business owners, including hotel owners, can maintain stability and growth as they continue to recover from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and adapt to new challenges.

The availability of SBA loans was a central topic, as these loans provide critical financial resources for small businesses. Dilawar Syed, Deputy Administrator of the SBA, provided updates on how the administration is working to make these loans more accessible and streamlined for business owners. This is especially important for hotel owners, many of whom rely on SBA loans to finance improvements, expansions, and daily operations.

Supply chain disruptions were also discussed during the briefing, with Monica Gorman, Special Assistant to the President for Manufacturing & Industrial Policy, addressing the administration’s efforts to tackle these challenges. Disruptions in the supply chain have affected a wide range of industries, including the hotel sector, where delays in receiving necessary goods and services have had a direct impact on business operations. The Biden-Harris Administration has implemented policies aimed at strengthening domestic manufacturing and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers to alleviate these issues.

In addition, the briefing covered the administration’s push for greater transparency when it comes to resort fees and junk fees. These fees, often tacked onto hotel bills without clear disclosure, have been a longstanding concern for both hotel owners and their customers. The administration’s focus on addressing these fees is part of a broader effort to promote transparency and fairness in the marketplace, ensuring that consumers are not caught off guard by hidden charges.

The inclusion of AAHOA in this important conversation reflects the administration’s recognition of the significant role that Asian American hotel owners play in the U.S. economy. AAHOA members own nearly 60% of all hotels in the United States, making their input crucial to any discussions about small business policies. By engaging directly with AAHOA members, the Biden-Harris Administration is demonstrating its commitment to addressing the unique challenges faced by small businesses in the hotel industry.

AAHOA President & CEO Laura Lee Blake expressed gratitude for the administration’s willingness to engage with the association and its members. “We are grateful that the Administration recognized the importance of engaging with AAHOA and our members on the challenges small businesses face,” Blake said. “The insights shared today will empower our hotel owners to make informed decisions as they steer through current industry challenges.”

The virtual briefing also highlighted the administration’s broader efforts to support small businesses through policies that promote economic recovery, job creation, and sustainability. The hotel industry, like many other sectors, has been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and small business owners continue to face challenges as they work to rebuild. Federal initiatives, such as those discussed during the briefing, are aimed at helping these businesses overcome obstacles and achieve long-term success.

By focusing on SBA loan access, supply chain improvements, and fee transparency, the Biden-Harris Administration is addressing key concerns that directly affect the hotel industry. The administration’s commitment to working closely with small business owners and industry leaders is crucial to ensuring that the economic recovery is inclusive and that businesses of all sizes can thrive.

For AAHOA members, the briefing provided valuable insights into how federal policies are evolving to meet the needs of small businesses. The opportunity to hear directly from senior administration officials about these issues offers hotel owners the information they need to make strategic decisions in a challenging economic environment.

The engagement between the Biden-Harris Administration and AAHOA members also underscores the importance of open communication between the government and small business owners. As the economy continues to recover and evolve, this ongoing dialogue will play a key role in shaping policies that support the growth and success of small businesses across the country.

The virtual briefing highlighted the administration’s dedication to helping small businesses, particularly hotel owners, navigate the complex economic landscape. With a focus on improving access to loans, addressing supply chain disruptions, and increasing fee transparency, the Biden-Harris Administration is working to ensure that small business owners have the tools they need to succeed in today’s economy.

John Kelly Criticizes Trump, Labels Him Fascist and Recounts Praise for Hitler’s Generals

In a striking series of interviews, John Kelly, the retired Marine general who served as Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff, openly criticized the former president. Kelly stated that Trump fits “into the general definition of fascist” and shared that Trump expressed a desire for the “kind of generals Hitler had.” The comments, published just two weeks before Election Day, have sparked further concerns about how Trump may wield power if re-elected.

Kelly’s accusations are part of a growing trend of former White House aides warning about Trump’s approach to leadership. In his interviews, Kelly detailed his time working with Trump, saying the ex-president preferred a dictator-like approach to governance. As Trump’s chief of staff from 2017 to 2019, Kelly observed Trump’s admiration for authoritarian figures, leading him to question Trump’s commitment to democratic principles.

Speaking to The New York Times, Kelly reinforced these concerns by stating that Trump “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.” Furthermore, in a separate conversation with The Atlantic, Kelly confirmed Trump’s unsettling praise for Nazi-era generals. Trump reportedly told Kelly that he wished his military personnel would show him the same loyalty that Adolf Hitler’s generals showed to the German dictator. When Kelly questioned whether Trump truly meant Hitler’s generals, Trump affirmed his comment. “Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s generals,” Trump said, according to Kelly. In response, Kelly recounted explaining that some of those generals, such as Rommel, had been involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler and were forced to commit suicide.

Trump’s campaign has vehemently denied these allegations. Alex Pfeiffer, a campaign adviser, dismissed the claims, calling them “absolutely false” and asserting that “President Trump never said this.” Despite the denial, the accusations have already been seized upon by Trump’s political opponents. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, running as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, reacted strongly to the reports. At a rally in Wisconsin, Walz expressed his disgust, stating, “The comments about Hitler’s generals make me sick as hell.” He continued, “The guardrails are gone. Trump is descending into this madness—a former president of the United States says he wants generals like Adolf Hitler had.”

Kelly’s remarks come during a critical point in the 2024 presidential campaign. Trump has increasingly hinted at using the U.S. military against his political opponents, whom he has referred to as the “enemy within.” These comments have alarmed Democrats, with Harris describing Trump as “unhinged” and warning that his rhetoric poses a threat to democratic values. “This is a democracy,” Harris said in an interview with Fox News. “In the United States of America, the president should be able to handle criticism without threatening to lock people up for it.”

Kelly criticized Trump’s inflammatory language, cautioning that even mentioning such ideas for political gain is dangerous. According to The New York Times, Kelly read out a definition of fascism during one of his interviews: “It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and forcible suppression of opposition.” Kelly then noted that Trump’s behavior and views align with this definition, explaining that Trump “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”

In Kelly’s view, Trump’s inability to grasp constitutional principles and the proper role of government officials was a key issue. “Trump never accepted the fact that he wasn’t the most powerful man in the world — and by power, I mean an ability to do anything he wanted, anytime he wanted,” Kelly said. He added that Trump’s desire to control officials in the same way he managed his business dealings showed a fundamental misunderstanding of how government functions. According to Kelly, Trump struggled to grasp that top officials’ loyalty was to the Constitution, not to him personally.

Trump’s campaign has been quick to reject Kelly’s accusations, labeling him as someone suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Campaign communications director Steven Cheung dismissed the comments, saying Kelly had “totally beclowned himself with these debunked stories.”

One of the more shocking aspects of Kelly’s interviews was his account of Trump praising Adolf Hitler. “He commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too,’” Kelly told The New York Times. This sentiment reportedly surfaced multiple times during Trump’s presidency, and Kelly confirmed similar accounts to The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of  The Atlantic, noted that Trump’s admiration for Hitler was one of the most disturbing things Kelly had encountered while serving in the White House.

Trump’s frustration with the U.S. military leadership has been well-documented. According to Goldberg, Trump was frequently annoyed by the fact that American military officers swore an oath to the Constitution rather than to the commander-in-chief. The former president’s desire for absolute loyalty, similar to that shown by Nazi generals, was a recurring theme in Kelly’s retelling.

CNN’s Jim Sciutto also reported similar claims in his book The Return of Great Powers. Sciutto shared an incident where Trump allegedly praised Hitler’s role in rebuilding the German economy. Kelly confronted Trump about the comment, reminding him that Hitler’s actions ultimately led to global conflict and immense suffering. Kelly recounted saying to Trump, “Sir, you can never say anything good about the guy. Nothing.”

In 2022, reporters Peter Baker and Susan Glasser documented another instance of Trump comparing his military officers to German generals in their book The Divider: Trump in the White House. According to the book, Trump lamented that his generals were not more like Hitler’s. Kelly confirmed these accounts to The Atlantic, describing a similar exchange with Trump.

The Atlantic also revealed a separate, troubling story about Trump’s reaction to the cost of a fallen servicemember’s funeral. According to sources cited by the publication, Trump had initially volunteered to pay for the funeral of Fort Hood Pfc. Vanessa Guillen, who had been murdered while on duty. However, when presented with the $60,000 bill, Trump allegedly refused to pay, making disparaging remarks about the servicemember’s ethnicity. Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, was instructed not to cover the costs. Trump’s campaign has denied this account, with Pfeiffer calling it “an outrageous lie” designed to smear Trump just two weeks before the election.

With the 2024 election fast approaching, Kelly’s criticisms highlight the ongoing concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his potential return to power. Despite the former president’s denials, these claims will likely continue to fuel debates surrounding Trump’s view of the presidency and the U.S. military.

Harris Holds Slim Lead Over Trump in Key Battleground States Ahead of Election

With Election Day fast approaching, Vice President Kamala Harris is leading former President Donald Trump in four key battleground states, while Trump holds narrow leads in two others. The polling, released Monday by the Washington Post-Schar School, surveyed voters in seven swing states that are critical in determining the outcome of the election.

According to the poll, Harris is leading Trump among likely voters in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, while Trump is ahead in Arizona and North Carolina. In Nevada, the two candidates are tied, each securing 48 percent of voter support.

In Georgia, Harris has a slight advantage with 51 percent of the vote compared to Trump’s 47 percent. The Peach State, which narrowly favored President Joe Biden in the 2020 election, has become a significant focus of Harris’s campaign. Her late-entry campaign efforts have centered heavily on Georgia, as she seeks to build on the Democratic momentum from the previous election.

Harris also holds a lead in Wisconsin, where she has 50 percent of voter support, compared to Trump’s 47 percent. Michigan is another close state, with Harris leading by just two percentage points over Trump. Both states are crucial for the Democrats, and Harris has benefited from the active campaigning of Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, both of whom are Democrats.

Pennsylvania, with its 19 electoral votes, is seen as one of the closest contests in the election. Harris currently has a 49 percent to 47 percent lead over Trump in the state. Pennsylvania is a crucial swing state that could play a decisive role in determining the overall winner of the election.

Meanwhile, Trump is ahead in Arizona, a state that was narrowly won by Biden in 2020. Arizona has become a key battleground once again, and Trump’s focus on immigration issues has resonated with voters there. According to the poll, Trump leads Harris 49 percent to 46 percent in the state. His efforts to regain control of Arizona have centered on his strong stance on immigration, which remains a central issue for voters in the region.

Trump is also leading in North Carolina, another important state in the upcoming election. The poll found Trump has 50 percent of voter support in the state, compared to Harris’s 47 percent. Both candidates plan to make campaign visits to North Carolina in the coming days, especially in light of the recent devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, which struck the western part of the state.

As the election nears, both candidates are fighting for every vote in these critical states, knowing that the outcome in these regions could determine who wins the presidency. Harris’s campaign has focused on continuing the work of the Biden administration, particularly in addressing economic and social issues, while Trump has positioned himself as a candidate who can restore the policies and priorities from his first term in office, particularly with regards to immigration, the economy, and foreign policy.

The polling data from The Washington Post-Schar School adds to the broader picture of a highly competitive election. According to a separate aggregation of polls from The Hill/Decision Desk HQ, Harris currently has a 1.5 percentage point lead over Trump. This suggests that while Harris may have an edge in several swing states, the race remains tight, and the final outcome is far from certain.

The Washington Post survey was conducted from September 29 to October 15, gathering responses from 5,016 voters across the seven battleground states. The margin of error for the survey is 1.7 percentage points, indicating that while Harris leads in several states, the results are close enough that the race could still shift in favor of either candidate as Election Day approaches.

As the final two weeks of campaigning unfold, both candidates are expected to ramp up their efforts in these swing states, making frequent visits and targeting key voter demographics in an attempt to sway undecided voters. The remaining time will be crucial as Harris and Trump aim to solidify their support and secure the electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Both campaigns are expected to focus on a few major issues that are particularly relevant to voters in these states. For Harris, the emphasis has been on economic recovery, healthcare access, and social justice reforms, while Trump has focused heavily on immigration, law and order, and rebuilding the economy in the wake of the pandemic.

The closeness of the race in several states reflects the deep political divisions that have marked this election cycle. Both Harris and Trump have their respective bases of support, but the key to winning may lie in convincing the relatively small number of undecided voters who are still weighing their options.

In Georgia, where Harris leads by 4 percentage points, the Democratic Party is hoping to replicate the success it had in 2020, when Biden narrowly won the state. Harris has made several trips to Georgia in the closing weeks of her campaign, highlighting the importance of voting rights and economic recovery. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, is counting on a strong turnout from his supporters in rural areas of the state, where his message of economic revival and conservative values resonates deeply.

In Wisconsin and Michigan, Harris’s slim leads are bolstered by the active support of Democratic governors who are popular in their respective states. Both Tony Evers of Wisconsin and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have campaigned alongside Harris, emphasizing her commitment to expanding healthcare access, protecting workers’ rights, and addressing climate change.

Trump, however, remains a formidable opponent in these states, particularly in areas that have experienced economic hardship in recent years. His message of bringing back manufacturing jobs and revitalizing the economy has found a receptive audience among many voters in the industrial Midwest, where economic concerns often take precedence over social issues.

The race in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most closely watched, given its significant electoral vote count and its history as a swing state that can determine the outcome of national elections. Harris’s narrow lead in the state reflects the importance of voter turnout in urban areas like Philadelphia, as well as the support she has garnered from labor unions and progressive groups. Trump, meanwhile, has focused on rural and suburban voters, where his message of economic revival and his tough stance on crime and immigration have resonated strongly.

As Election Day approaches, both campaigns are preparing for a final push to win over undecided voters in these battleground states. With just two weeks left, the outcome of the election remains highly uncertain, and it is clear that every vote will count in determining the next president of the United States.

Kamala Harris Criticizes Trump in Heated Fox News Interview, Defends Biden Administration’s Record

In her first appearance on Fox News since taking office, Vice President Kamala Harris used the opportunity to attack her Republican rival, Donald Trump, while defending her record and the Biden administration’s policies. The interview, held Wednesday, highlighted Harris’s efforts to appeal to disaffected Republican and independent voters as the 2024 presidential race heats up.

When questioned on issues such as illegal border crossings and violent crimes involving undocumented immigrants during President Joe Biden’s tenure, Harris directed her criticism at Trump. She repeatedly mentioned the former president’s opposition to a bipartisan border security bill earlier in the year. “We have a broken immigration system,” she said, laying the blame on Trump for his refusal to back reforms.

Harris also didn’t shy away from addressing concerns about Biden’s age and mental sharpness, an issue raised frequently by Republicans. Turning the tables, she labeled Trump as “unstable” and questioned his fitness for office, emphasizing, “We should all be concerned.”

The vice president further accused Fox News of downplaying Trump’s divisive rhetoric, noting that the former president had often referred to political opponents as “the enemy within.” She said, “Here’s the bottom line: He has repeated it many times, and you and I both know that. And you and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”

Harris made it clear that, in a democracy, the president should be able to handle criticism without threatening retribution. “This is a democracy,” she stated, “And in a democracy, the president of the United States – in the United States of America – should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he would lock people up for doing it.”

The interview was part of Harris’s broader effort to appeal to Republican voters who are uncomfortable with Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. In recent weeks, Harris has been campaigning alongside prominent Republican figures like former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and others from Trump’s administration who have distanced themselves from the former president.

Earlier on Wednesday, Harris spoke at an event in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, near the historic site where George Washington crossed the Delaware River during the American Revolution. The event gathered over 100 Republicans supporting her campaign, including figures such as former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger and former Georgia Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan.

During the Fox News interview, Harris also sought to differentiate herself from President Biden, a departure from her earlier statements. She stressed that her presidency, if elected, would not be a continuation of Biden’s administration. “My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency,” Harris told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “I represent a new generation of leadership,” she added. “I, for example, am someone who has not spent the majority of my career in Washington, DC. I invite ideas, whether it be from the Republicans who are supporting me who were just onstage with me minutes ago, and the business sector and others who can contribute to the decisions I make.”

In another key segment of the interview, Harris was pressed about a Trump campaign ad that highlighted her previous stance on gender-affirming care for prisoners, a position she supported during her time as a California senator and presidential candidate in 2019. When asked whether she still supports using taxpayer funds for such care, including for undocumented immigrants, Harris was careful to emphasize her commitment to following the law.

“I will follow the law, and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You’re probably familiar with, now it’s a public report that under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available on a medical necessity basis, to people in the federal prison system,” she explained. Harris pointed out that the Trump administration had allowed such services, calling the ad’s criticism hypocritical: “I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of like throwing, you know, stones when you’re living in a glass house.”

Pressed again by Baier on whether she would personally advocate for taxpayer funding of gender-affirming surgeries, Harris remained firm, reiterating her position: “I would follow the law, just as I think Donald Trump would say he did.”

Throughout the interview, Harris repeatedly referred to the bipartisan border security bill that was blocked by Republicans earlier this year. She argued that the failure to pass this legislation has exacerbated the challenges at the US-Mexico border, where facilities are overwhelmed by the number of migrants entering the country.

Baier challenged Harris on the Biden administration’s decision to roll back Trump-era immigration policies, leading to several tense exchanges between the two. At one point, Baier pressed Harris to estimate how many undocumented immigrants had been released into the U.S. during Biden’s presidency. “Just a number. Do you think it’s 1 million, 3 million?” he asked. Harris refused to provide a figure, instead reiterating her point about the broken immigration system.

“Bret, let’s just get to the point, OK? The point is that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired,” she responded. Harris acknowledged the tragic consequences of a system in disrepair, including the case of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old Georgia nursing student who was killed by an undocumented immigrant released by U.S. authorities. “First of all, those are tragic cases. There’s no question about that. There is no question about that, and I can’t imagine the pain that the families of those victims have experienced for a loss that should not have occurred,” she said.

But Harris was quick to return to her criticism of Republican opposition to border security reforms, saying, “It is also true that if a border security bill had actually been passed nine months ago. It would be nine months that we would have had more border agents at the border, more support for the folks who are working around the clock trying to hold it all together.”

Harris maintained that both parties agree on the need to fix the system: “I have no pride in saying that this is a perfect immigration system,” she admitted. “I’ve been clear — I think we all are — that it needs to be fixed.”

In response to questions about her stance on benefits for undocumented immigrants, Harris remained evasive, reiterating only that she would “follow the law.” She also confirmed that she does not support decriminalizing illegal border crossings. “I do not believe in decriminalizing border crossings, and I’ve not done that as vice president,” she said. “I will not do that as president.”

-+=