The head of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association has hit out at Donald Trump for asking staff to work unpaid. In a post to Truth Social yesterday, Trump warned those who did not return to work following the end of the government shutdown would be punished. The president warned those who did not return to work immediately would have their pay "substantially docked" and some could even be replaced by "true patriots". Trump took to Truth Social and wrote, "All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!! Anyone who doesn’t will be substantially 'docked.' For those Air Traffic Controllers who were GREAT PATRIOTS, and didn’t take ANY TIME OFF for the 'Democrat Shutdown Hoax,' I will be recommending a BONUS of $10,000 per person for distinguished service to our Country. "For those that did nothing but complain, and took time off, even though everyone knew they would be paid, IN FULL, shortly into the future, I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU. You didn’t step up to help the U.S.A. against the FAKE DEMOCRAT ATTACK that was only meant to hurt our Country. "You will have a negative mark, at least in my mind, against your record. If you want to leave service in the near future, please do not hesitate to do so, with NO payment or severance of any kind!" Nick Daniels, the President of the NATCA, called the lack of pay for workers "un-American" and shared how some air traffic controllers had resorted to selling plasma during the government shutdown. The NATCA head said several employees were even having to DoorDash in their off-hours to make ends meet. Daniels said, "No American should ever be forced to work without a paycheck. To not pay someone for the work that they have performed is un-American, and failing to pay that workforce that keeps our sky safe is not acceptable and it is not sustainable." Despite the government reopening, it may be some time before flight schedules are back to their pre-shutdown numbers. A statement from Airlines for America suggested the number of flights cannot "immediately bounce back to full capacity" and that there may be "further impacts" on those traveling in the next few weeks. Their statement reads, "Airlines’ reduced flight schedules cannot immediately bounce back to full capacity right after the government reopens. It will take time, and there will be residual effects for days. With the Thanksgiving travel period beginning next week and the busy shipping season around the corner, the time to act is now to help mitigate any further impacts to Americans."

After 41 days of unpaid federal workers, shuttered government agencies and mounting public pain, the Senate approved a funding package Monday night to reopen government, moving the country one step closer to ending the longest shutdown in American history. But the lights in Washington aren’t back on just yet. The legislation, approved in the Senate with the support of 52 Republicans and eight Democrats, combines three full-year spending bills with a stopgap measure to keep the rest of the government funded through Jan. 30. The package also reverses mass layoffs triggered during the shutdown and blocks additional firings through the duration of the continuing resolution. The bill passed the Senate 60-40, with those eight senators who caucus with the Democrats — Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., John Fetterman, D-Pa., Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., Tim Kaine, D-Va., Angus King, I-Maine, Jackie Rosen, D-Nev., and Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. — joining all but one Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, to support the legislation. While the bill to reopen government still has to pass the House — and still needs President Donald Trump’s signature — the Senate was the tallest hurdle. In fact, even getting senators to expedite consideration, after a critical number of Senate Democrats showed on Sunday that they would vote with Republicans, was its own obstacle. “I am grateful that the end is in sight,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said on the floor Monday. “But I would encourage every member of this body, Democrat or Republican, pro-bill or anti-bill, not to stand in the way of being able to deliver the coming relief quickly. The American people have suffered for long enough.” Thune got his wish. Senators agreed to speed up the process in their chamber on Monday in order to likely end the shutdown some time in the next couple of days. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told House Republicans on a members-only conference call Monday that he is aiming to clear the legislation on Wednesday, according to a source on the call who was granted anonymity to discuss the private plans. It will be the first day the House has held a legislative session since Sept. 19. While House passage, of course, isn’t guaranteed, Republicans can advance the legislation without Democratic support. That’s a relief for House GOP leaders, since they are unlikely to draw more than a handful of votes from vulnerable Democrats in swing districts. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has vowed to vote against the legislation and is pushing the rest of his caucus to oppose it as well, slamming the deal that a handful of Democrats crafted with Republicans because it omits any immediate action on the Obamacare subsidies. In exchange for Democratic support, Thune agreed to allow a Senate vote on legislation to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. But he offered no assurances about the outcome, and the measure — which would require 60 votes to advance — is widely expected to fail. Throughout the shutdown, Democrats had insisted that any agreement to reopen the government include language addressing the expiring tax credits. They didn’t get that language — and lawmakers are now only one step away from solving the shutdown without addressing skyrocketing health care premiums. If all House Democrats vote no on the funding bill, Republicans can only afford two GOP defections while still passing the legislation. But there’s another dynamic complicating passage in the House: Attendance. With shutdown-inducted travel issues impacting airlines across the country, members could face delays and cancellations on their way back to Washington. “We are urging you this morning to start finding your way here, right now,” Johnson told members Monday on the private GOP conference call, according to the source. “Get back to D.C.” Senate passage of the funding package caps off a whirlwind six weeks in the Senate, which saw more than a dozen unsuccessful votes to open the government, plenty of intraparty fighting, and the rise and collapse — and rise again — of bipartisan talks. But in many ways, the drama is just beginning. For all the Democratic dissatisfaction over this shutdown deal, Democrats will have to quickly regroup to try to muster the support of 13 Senate Republicans to support an extension of the expiring Obamacare subsidies. If Senate Democrats somehow win over enough Republicans, Democrats believe they could force a vote in the House — if not through political pressure on Johnson, then at least by a discharge petition. It’s unlikely, however, that Senate Democrats will secure the support of so many Republicans on an Obamacare subsidy extension. And with Democrats seeming to walk away from the shutdown with little more than a show-vote, many Senate Democrats are still dumbfounded that eight of their colleagues would fold after last week’s resounding election results for Democrats. “The people were on our side,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. “We were building momentum to help save our democracy. We could have won — the premium increase notices were just starting. And giving in now will embolden him.” “Things will likely get worse,” he said. Read More

President Trump on Monday threatened to sue the BBC for $1 billion over a documentary that his lawyer claimed included “malicious, disparaging” edits to a speech Mr. Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021. The legal threat came in a letter from Alejandro Brito, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, to the BBC that was obtained by The New York Times. The letter demanded a full retraction of the documentary, an apology and what his lawyers said would be payments that “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused.” The letter said that if those demands were not met, “President Trump will be left with no alternative but to enforce his legal and equitable rights, all of which are expressly reserved and are not waived, including by filing legal action for no less than $1,000,000,000 (One Billion Dollars) in damages.” It said that the lawsuit would be filed if the BBC had not taken action by this Friday at 5 p.m. Eastern time. “The BBC is on notice,” the letter said, adding, “PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.” The head of the BBC, Tim Davie, and the chief executive of BBC News, Deborah Turness, resigned on Sunday after growing pressure over the editing of the documentary. The BBC said on its website that it had received a letter threatening legal action and that it would “respond in due course.” The documentary, called “Trump: A Second Chance?” and broadcast before the presidential election last year, had already been removed from the BBC’s online player. Samir Shah, the BBC’s chair, said in a separate letter Monday that complaints about the editing of the clip had been discussed by the standards committee in January and May, and that the points raised in the review had been relayed to the BBC team that produced the documentary, part of a long-running current affairs series called Panorama. “With hindsight, it would have been better to take more formal action,” he wrote. He added: “We accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly used lawsuits to put pressure on media companies and journalists that he does not like. In October 2024, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit claiming that CBS News had edited a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, then the Democratic nominee for president, to make her answers look more sophisticated than they were. Paramount Global, the network’s owner, agreed to pay $16 million to Mr. Trump in July to settle the case. This year, the president sued The New York Times and three of its reporters for $15 billion for what he claimed were false and malicious stories about him that appeared in the newspaper. He also sued Penguin Random House, the publisher of a book written by two Times reporters. Judge Steven D. Merryday, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, initially rejected the president’s complaint, calling it unnecessarily long and saying that “a complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective.” The president later refiled the case, dropping one defendant and making the complaint shorter. A spokeswoman for The Times responded to the refiled claim by saying it had no merit and was “merely an attempt to stifle independent reporting and generate P.R. attention.” In Monday’s letter to the BBC, the president’s lawyer focuses on the documentary, saying that it wrongly combined clips of the president’s Jan. 6 speech to create the impression that Mr. Trump was urging his followers to commit violence. The letter cites a leaked memo written by a former adviser to the BBC standards committee, Michael Prescott, which was highly critical of the way the documentary was edited, along with several other aspects of BBC editorial output. While Mr. Shah, the BBC’s chair, apologized for the Panorama edit in his letter to a parliamentary committee on Monday, he also criticized Mr. Prescott’s memo, saying it was a “personal account” and “did not present a full picture of the discussions, decisions and actions” by the broadcaster.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hormone-based drugs used to treat hot flashes and other menopause symptoms will no longer carry a bold warning label about stroke, heart attack, dementia and other serious risks, the Food and Drug Administration announced Monday. U.S. health officials said they will remove the boxed warning from more than 20 pills, patches and creams containing hormones like estrogen and progestin, which are approved to ease disruptive symptoms like night sweats. The change has been supported by some doctors — including FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who has called the current label outdated and unnecessary. But some doctors worried that the process which led to the decision was flawed. Health officials explained the move by pointing to studies suggesting hormone therapy has few risks when started before age 60 and within 10 years of menopause symptoms. “We’re challenging outdated thinking and recommitting to evidence-based medicine that empowers rather than restricts,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in introducing the update. The 22-year-old FDA warning advised doctors that hormone therapy increases the risk of blood clots, heart problems and other health issues, citing data from an influential study published more than 20 years ago. Many doctors — and pharmaceutical companies — have called for removing or revising the label, which they say discourages prescriptions and scares off women who could benefit. Dr. Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the warnings have created a lot of hesitancy among patients. “I can spend 30 minutes counseling someone about hormone-replacement therapy— tell them everything — but when they fill the prescription and see that warning they just get scared,” Fleischman said. Other experts have opposed making changes to the label without a careful, transparent process. They say the FDA should have convened its independent advisers to publicly consider any revisions. Debate over the health benefits of hormone therapy continues Medical guidelines generally recommend the drugs for a limited duration in younger women going through menopause who don’t have complicating risks, such as breast cancer. FDA’s updated prescribing information mostly matches that approach. But Makary and some other doctors have suggested that hormone therapy’s benefits can go far beyond managing uncomfortable mid-life symptoms. Before becoming FDA commissioner, Makary dedicated a chapter of his most recent book to extolling the overall benefits of hormone therapy and criticizing doctors unwilling to prescribe it. On Monday he reiterated that viewpoint, citing figures suggesting hormone-therapy reduces heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other age-related conditions. “With few exceptions, there may be no other medication in the modern era that can improve the health outcomes of women at a population level more than hormone replacement therapy,” Makary told reporters. The veracity of those benefits remains the subject of ongoing research and debate— including among the experts whose work led to the original warning. Dr. JoAnn Manson of Harvard Medical School said the evidence for overall health benefits is not “as conclusive or definitive” as what Makary described. Still, removing the warning is a good step because it could lead to physicians and patients making more personalized decisions, she said. “The black box is really one size fits all. It scares everyone away,” Manson said. “Without the black box warning there may be more focus on the actual findings, how they differ by age and underlying health factors.”Hormone therapy was once the norm for American women In the 1990s, more than 1 in 4 U.S. women took estrogen alone or in combination with progestin on the assumption that — in addition to treating menopause — it would reduce rates of heart disease, dementia and other issues. But a landmark study of more than 26,000 women challenged that idea, linking two different types of hormone pills to higher rates of stroke, blood clots, breast cancer and other serious risks. After the initial findings were published in 2002, prescriptions plummeted among women of all age groups, including younger menopausal women. Since then, all estrogen drugs have carried the FDA’s boxed warning — the most serious type. “That study was misrepresented and created a fear machine that lingers to this day,” Makary said. Continuing analysis has shown a more nuanced picture of the risks. A new analysis of the 2002 data published in September found that women in their 50s taking estrogen-based drugs faced no increased risk of heart problems, whereas women in their 70s did. The data was unclear for women in their 60s, and the authors advised caution. Additionally, many newer forms of the drugs have been introduced since the early 2000s, including vaginal creams and tablets that deliver lower hormone doses than pills, patches and other drugs that circulate throughout the bloodstream. The original language contained in the boxed warning will still be available to prescribers, but it will appear lower down on the label. The drugs will retain a boxed warning that women who have not had a hysterectomy should receive a combination of estrogen-progestin due to risks of cancer in the lining of the uterus.FDA sidestepped its usual public process in reviewing warning Rather than convening one of FDA’s standing advisory committees on women’s health or drug safety, Makary earlier this year invited a dozen doctors and researchers who overwhelmingly supported the health benefits of hormone-replacement drugs. Many of the panelists at the July meeting consult for drugmakers or prescribe the medications in their private practices. Two of the experts also spoke at Monday’s FDA news conference. Asked Monday why the FDA didn’t convene a formal advisory panel on the issue, Makary said such meetings are “bureaucratic, long, often conflicted and very expensive.” Diana Zuckerman of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which analyzes medical research, accused Makary of undermining the FDA’s credibility by announcing the change “rather than having scientists scrutinize the research at an FDA scientific meeting.” ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

President Trump has bragged many times about the revenue tariffs are bringing in – money paid by American businesses, who pass some of the costs on to consumers. Over the weekend, Trump pushed the idea of paying that money back to Americans, in the form of $2,000 payments. The idea is in no way a detailed proposal, but what Trump has said about it presents multiple steep challenges for the administration: the plan may cost far more than Trump is saying, and Trump's rhetoric around tariff revenue may undermine his administration's pro-tariff arguments at the Supreme Court. In addition, his administration is already saying that the plan won't even involve direct payments to taxpayers, even while Trump continues to push that notion. Trump summarized much of what he's said about his tariff rebate plan speaking with reporters on Monday. "We're going to issue a dividend to our middle income people and lower income people of about $2,000," he said. "And we're going to use the remaining tariffs to lower our debt." While details are scant, budget experts are already saying that there just isn't enough money for this idea. "Even with the most conservative estimates applied to it, it doesn't work," said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the right-leaning Tax Foundation. By her math, if the rebates went to people making under $100,000 per year, that would cost way more than the amount of revenue tariffs will bring in. "So you'll see at least a $100 billion gap there between what we can expect the tariffs to generate for the U.S. government versus what the president is promising to spend on tariff rebates for American citizens." She added that even if the money went out only to people making $75,000 or less annually, there still wouldn't be enough revenue, by her calculations. In other words, the proposal could add to the debt – the opposite of what Trump said he wanted it to do. "To me, this seems less of a thought out policy proposal and more of – 'A $2,000 check sounds good. People are struggling with affordability. They're tired of inflation. What can I say to make them think I'm trying to do something?'" York said. Then again, the White House is already saying the plan might not involve a straightforward check or payment sent to taxpayers, like the stimulus money during the height of covid. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on ABC's This Week on Sunday that voters might receive the money in the form of tax cuts that Congress already passed earlier this year. "The $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms," Bessent said. "It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president's agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security." NPR asked the White House for additional details on the plan. "The Administration is committed to putting this money to good use for the American people," said a White House official not authorized to speak on the record. Talking about revenues puts the Trump administration in a tricky position right now. Just last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments against some of Trump's tariffs, with tariff opponents saying Congress – not the president – has the power to levy taxes. In response, administration lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that revenues aren't the point of the tariffs. "These are regulatory tariffs," Solicitor General John Sauer said to the justices. "They are not revenue-raising tariffs. The fact that they raise revenue is only incidental." Asked on Sunday to square that argument with Trump's revenue talk, Bessent said the tariffs are ultimately meant to bring businesses back into the US. No matter what, Congress would have to authorize any payments. And even if the government were open, it's not a given that would happen.

WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Monday approved a compromise that would end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, breaking a weeks-long stalemate that has disrupted food benefits for millions, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and snarled air traffic. The 60-40 vote passed with the support of nearly all of the chamber's Republicans and eight Democrats, who unsuccessfully sought to tie government funding to health subsidies that are due to expire at the end of the year. While the agreement sets up a December vote on those subsidies, which benefit 24 million Americans, it does not guarantee they will continue. Read about innovative ideas and the people working on solutions to global crises with the Reuters Beacon newsletter. Sign up here. The deal would restore funding for federal agencies that lawmakers allowed to expire on October 1 and would stall President Donald Trump's campaign to downsize the federal workforce, preventing any layoffs until January 30. It next heads to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson has said he would like to pass it as soon as Wednesday and send it on to Trump to sign into law. Trump has called the deal to reopen the government "very good."The deal would extend funding through January 30, leaving the federal government for now on a path to keep adding about $1.8 trillion a year to its $38 trillion in debt.Coming a week after Democrats won high-profile elections in New Jersey, Virginia and elected a democratic socialist as the next mayor of New York City, the deal has provoked anger among many Democrats who note there is no guarantee that the Republican-controlled Senate or House would agree to extend the health insurance subsidies. Item 1 of 6 The U.S. Capitol building is illuminated the night the Senate passed a short-term government funding bill, more than a month into the longest U.S. government shutdown, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 10, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz [1/6]The U.S. Capitol building is illuminated the night the Senate passed a short-term government funding bill, more than a month into the longest U.S. government shutdown, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 10, 2025. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab "We wish we could do more," said Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat. "The government shutting down seemed to be an opportunity to lead us to better policy. It didn't work." A late October Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 50% of Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown, while 43% blamed Democrats.U.S. stocks rose on Monday, buoyed by news of progress on a deal to reopen the government. Trump has unilaterally cancelled billions of dollars in spending and trimmed federal payrolls by hundreds of thousands of workers, intruding on Congress's constitutional authority over fiscal matters. Those actions have violated past spending laws passed by Congress, and some Democrats have questioned why they would vote for any such spending deals going forward. The deal does not appear to include any specific guardrails to prevent Trump from enacting further spending cuts. However, the deal would fund the SNAP food-subsidy program through September 30 of next year, heading off any possible disruptions if Congress were to shut down the government again during that time. Reporting by Richard Cowan, Andy Sullivan and Nolan D. McCaskill; Additional reporting by Katharine Jackson, Jasper Ward, David Shepardson, Courtney Rozen and Trevor Hunnicutt; Writing by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Scott Malone and Lisa Shumaker Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Andy covers politics and policy in Washington. His work has been cited in Supreme Court briefs, political attack ads and at least one Saturday Night Live skit. Nolan D. McCaskill reports on American politics, including the U.S. Congress. He previously covered Texas politics at The Dallas Morning News and national politics at Politico and the Los Angeles Times. He is a graduate of Florida A&M University and a member of the National Association of Black Journalists. Reach him at nolan.mccaskill@thomsonreuters.com.

The government shutdown is already the longest in American history. But it’s also perhaps the most punishing, in part because President Trump has taken actions no previous administration ever took during a shutdown. Over the past six weeks, the Trump administration cut food stamps for millions of low-income Americans. It tried to fire thousands of government workers and withhold back pay from others, while freezing or canceling money for projects in Democratic-led states. It remains to be seen whether there will be a political price to pay for Mr. Trump or his party, with polls showing that voters generally blamed Republicans more for the shutdown. But for now, the tactics appear to have worked, after a group of Democrats agreed to support a bill to end the shutdown and drop the concessions their party had demanded. Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

ALT: a little boy sitting on a red couch with the words " where are your balls "

It turns out, the government shutdown ended because some senators want to be able to keep campaigning on Obamacare. Seven Senate Democrats and one independent caved on the government shutdown Sunday, leaving their party empty-handed after a grueling 40-day deadlock with Republicans. Those senators included Dick Durbin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, John Fetterman, and Tim Kaine, as well as independent Angus King. All eight lawmakers are either retiring or won’t face another election for several years, making the alleged behind-the-scenes rationale for the crumbling stalemate even more asinine. More than a dozen House and Senate Democrats expressed anxiety that actually preserving premium subsidies for the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium tax credits through their shutdown demands could strip them of a winning issue in the coming midterms, reported The New York Times. Their secondary anxiety involved the powerful Senate filibuster, fearing that conservatives might actually bow to Donald Trump’s demands to ax the disruptive legislative tool. “The political logic of the shutdown fight was inverted: If Democrats got the tax credits extended—if they ‘won’—they would be solving a huge electoral problem for Republicans,” reported the Times. “If Republicans successfully allowed the tax credits to expire—if they ‘won’—they would be handing Democrats a cudgel with which to beat them in the elections.” Without the premium tax credits, health insurance premiums for more than 20 million Americans are expected to double. The result, according to policy experts, will be a mass exodus from Obamacare plans altogether, leaving roughly four million Americans uninsured. The spike in uninsured Americans will spur a public health problem that has historically proved to make premiums more expensive for the insured as hospitals look to recoup the lost cash. Low-income regions of the country, such as Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina, will be particularly hard hit as recipients decide whether they can afford the rising costs. That is, apparently, a potential electoral opportunity, according to congressional Democrats—regardless of how many people will be at risk for physical and financial ruin in the interim. The message is as simple as it is disastrous: Democrats will do anything to stay in power, even if it means undermining the needs of their constituents. Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, didn’t seem to think standing up to Donald Trump would work in the government shutdown standoff. Speaking to MSNBC’s Morning Joe Monday morning, King said that he supported Democrats’ shutdown strategy, the goals of which were, in his view, to stand up to Trump and resolve the issue of expiring health care subsidies. But he said the shutdown wasn’t accomplishing either goal, and there was “zero likelihood it was going to.” “In terms of standing up to Donald Trump, the shutdown actually gave him more power,” King said, pointing out the president’s refusal to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program despite multiple court orders, as well as the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were among the few government employees still getting paid during the shutdown. “Standing up to Donald Trump didn’t work. It actually gave him more power,” King concluded.Twitter embed King spearheaded the deal to give in to Republicans in exchange for a promise of a future vote on extending health care subsidies. This deal caused backlash from other Democrats in Congress and the party base. For some reason, King felt that holding the line against Trump and the GOP wasn’t working, despite Democrats’ landslide election wins last week and favorable poll numbers. Did King really believe this, or were there other reasons why he caved? His son, Angus King III, is running for governor of Maine, and Senator King’s decision may have been a misguided attempt to help him. King is also not up for reelection until 2030, so perhaps he thought he could escape electoral consequences. But he seems alone among Maine’s Democratic leaders. The two leading Democratic candidates running for Maine’s other Senate seat next year, Governor Judy Mills and oysterman Graham Platner, oppose the budget deal. While 2030 is a long way away, perhaps King, age 81, needs to reevaluate his career choices. House Speaker Mike Johnson has found a way around answering every question with “I don’t know”—he’s just not going to answer any questions at all. During a press briefing Monday, Johnson discussed the tentative deal struck by a group of errant Democrats to end the government shutdown, but he scurried off before taking any questions. “There are probably lots of questions, but I’m gonna get a lot of my own questions answered later today, so, stay tuned for more,” Johnson said, before quickly departing the press gallery. Johnson isn’t very good at taking questions in the first place. During the shutdown, the Donald Trump ally has forged a reputation for feigning ignorance in the face of tough questions about everything from Trump’s brutal crackdown on immigrants, to the president’s blatant corruption, to what’s going on in his own chamber. The handful of Democratic (and one independent) senators who caved to support the Republicans’ continuing resolution Sunday claimed that they’d managed to secure a House vote on a bill ensuring the continuance of Affordable Care Act subsidies. Not only is such a measure unlikely to pass the GOP-controlled House, but Johnson wouldn’t even commit to the vote Monday as reporters shouted after the fleeing Republican with questions about his plans. Johnson insisted as recently as last week that he wouldn’t promise Democrats a vote on anything. Meanwhile, Democrats slammed their colleagues for settling for the promise of a vote. Senator Jeanne Shaheen revealed that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer knew the entire time about the plan for a few Democrats to capitulate to Republicans on the government shutdown. Shaheen, one of the seven Democrats (and one independent) who dropped their demand for a guaranteed extension of Obamacare subsidies, spoke to Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade on Monday morning. “Senator Chuck Schumer, your leader in the Senate, said ‘I cannot support a continuing resolution that fails to address health care, I am voting no.’ Did you do this outside leadership, and was there a big push for you not to join the others and break the 60 threshold?” Kilmeade asked. “No, we kept leadership informed throughout,” Shaheen responded. “And I think it’s important to remember who’s responsible for why we got into this shutdown. We are here because we are concerned about the health care costs rising significantly on millions of Americans, and we didn’t have any indication before the shutdown started that our Republican colleagues were willing to address it.” Aside from serving as further proof that the Democrats are failing to act as an opposition party in any meaningful way, Shaheen’s comments also reveal one of two possible scenarios. Either Schumer was scheming to end the shutdown behind the scenes, only pretending to be against it while pinning the blame on the eight people who aren’t up for reelection anytime soon, or he has no control over his party. Either way, it proves the need for Democrats to jettison the minority leader. Twitter embed Ghislaine Maxwell is asking Donald Trump to commute her prison sentence. The longtime girlfriend and criminal associate of pedophilic sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein is working on a “commutation application,” according to documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee via a whistleblower. “Documents and information received over the last several days by this Committee … [indicate] that Ghislaine Maxwell is working on filing a ‘Commutation Application’ with your Administration—demonstrating either that Ms. Maxwell is herself requesting you release her from her 20-year prison sentence for her role as a coconspirator in Jeffrey Epstein’s international child sex trafficking ring, or that this child sex predator now holds such tremendous sway in the second Trump Administration that you and your [Justice Department] will follow her clemency recommendations,” Ranking Member Jamie Raskin wrote in a scathing memo dated Sunday. Maxwell was transferred to a minimum-security prison camp mere days after she met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in July to help curate a new list of Epstein’s potential associates. It was unclear at the time why the Trump administration would want to procure another list of Epstein’s associates, particularly when it already had (but refused to release) files pertaining to his investigation. Since then, concerns have swelled among Republican lawmakers that Trump’s relationship with Epstein was even cozier than previously understood: A few conservative representatives with ties to the FBI and the Justice Department spilled last week that the true details of the Epstein files are “worse” for Trump than previously reported. In a convenient turn of events, Maxwell’s new list of Epstein associates does not include Trump’s name. But the information exchange resulted in an extremely cushy transfer for Maxwell—one of the worst sex criminals of the century—shipping her from a Florida prison to a low-security prison camp in Texas that lawmakers have described as “not suitable for a sex offender.” Maxwell has since raved about her new digs, celebrating the difference between the two facilities as akin to having “dropped through Alice in Wonderlands [sic] looking glass,” according to emails obtained by the House Judiciary Committee. Maxwell was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in jail for playing an active role in Epstein’s crimes, identifying and grooming vulnerable young women while normalizing their abuse at the hands of her millionaire boyfriend. Maxwell’s attorneys have pressed the White House for a pardon for several months now. Trump was photographed with Maxwell several times over his long friendship with Epstein. She and Trump partied together, attended fashion shows together, and went “out on the town” together, according to a 1997 postcard. President Donald Trump made a bad day worse for Washington Commanders fans, as he was loudly booed while making an announcement from the broadcasting booth during the game versus the Detroit Lions in Maryland on Sunday. The president performed an enlistment ceremony creed for new members of the military during a pause in the game. He read from a black binder, speaking into a microphone. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stood close by, as the president was booed nonstop for over two minutes. Twitter embed “Please raise your right hand. I—and state your name—do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” Trump said.Twitter embed The boos could be heard clearly, even on Fox’s official broadcast, and Trump had to pause multiple times in that short statement. In video taken from fans in the stands, middle fingers and jeers can be seen and heard from Lions fans and Commanders fans alike. Trump was the first sitting president to go to an NFL game in almost 50 years, with the last being Jimmy Carter in 1978. The president made an appearance on the Fox NFL television broadcast, joining Kenny Albert and Jonathan Vilma in the booth afterward, talking about his relationship with football, which he played in high school. He also brought up his role in building the Commanders’ new stadium, which he reportedly wants named after him. “They’re going to build a beautiful stadium. That’s what I’m involved in, we’re getting all the approvals and everything else,” he said. “And you have a wonderful owner, Josh (Harris) and his group. And you’re going to see some very good things.” This is just one of many sporting events that the president has made a point to show face at, making himself known at UFC fights, the Daytona 500, the U.S. Open, and the Ryder Cup. Trump has even promised a UFC fight on the White House lawn next summer. Trump’s presence may have been a death stroke for the Commanders, as they lost to the Lions 44–22, falling to 3–7 on the season. Senator Chuck Grassley isn’t able to read like he used to. The 92-year-old had difficulty parsing a prewritten statement on the demerits of Obamacare subsidies Sunday night. “So everybody else that depends upon the subsidy for Obamacare, I want to make very clear to them that the pre-premium subsides for individuals and families under 400 percent of the federal poverty lever that existed prior to Covid are permanent law, and those people will not be affected because that permit of law is not being changed by anything that we’re debating here today,” Grassley said.Twitter embed Grassley’s slip comes just a few weeks after the senator, who is third in line for presidential succession, struggled to understand a reporter’s question and gave a completely unrelated answer. More than 20 percent of U.S. lawmakers are over the age of 70. That includes 86 members of the House and 33 senators, making the current Congress the oldest in U.S. history. Calls for aging government officials to retire have grown louder in recent years, particularly after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020. Ginsburg remained on the Supreme Court until she passed despite an advanced pancreatic cancer diagnosis, providing Donald Trump the opportunity to replace her. Representatives Gerry Connolly and Dianne Feinstein also died in office, leaving Democrats short on critical votes in the wake of their deaths. Last week, after years of mounting pressure related to her age, Representative Nancy Pelosi announced she will not seek reelection. The longtime Democratic leader will exit when her term expires in 2027—at 87 years old—after 39 years in office. Despite public clamor to make American politics young again, no branch of government appears to be safe from the seniority stripe. Last year, voters elected Trump to become the oldest president in U.S. history, and he attended his second inauguration at nearly 79 years old. Meanwhile, this aging class of politicians is drafting the future of the country—one that, thanks in part to Grassley’s efforts, will not include Affordable Care Act subsidies. The government shutdown ended Sunday after 40 grueling days of deadlock on the merits of the ACA’s enhanced premium tax credits, which assist individuals making upward of 400 percent of the federal poverty level. It was the longest federal suspension in U.S. history. Eight Senate Democrats caved to Donald Trump and voted to approve a budget deal with Republicans to end the government shutdown, angering their colleagues in Congress as well as their own party’s base. These eight senators, including independent Angus King who caucuses with the party, are all either retiring or up for reelection years from now. They likely feel that they won’t have to pay an electoral cost for failing to stand up for Democrats’ goal of extending health care subsidies, instead settling for a future vote on the matter. The full list of these Democrats is below: Senator Richard Durbin (Illinois, retiring)Senator Angus King (Maine, term ends in 2030)Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada, term ends in 2028)Senator Jacky Rosen (Nevada, term ends in 2030)Senator Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire, term ends in 2028)Senator Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire, retiring)Senator John Fetterman (Pennsylvania, 2028)Senator Tim Kaine (Virginia, 2030) The conservative-majority Supreme Court denied a challenge Monday to its landmark same-sex marriage ruling. The Supreme Court rejected a long-shot petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses for gay and lesbian couples following the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Davis was seeking to overturn the decision that had legalized same-sex marriage. Davis had appealed the $360,000 she was ordered to pay after refusing to grant a marriage license to David Ermold and David Moore, a same-sex couple, because she was acting “under God’s authority.” When the two men pointed out that she had given marriage licenses to “murderer[s], rapists, and people who have done all kinds of horrible things,” Davis responded that “that was fine because they were straight,” according to court filings. Three of the four justices who dissented from Obergefell are still on the court, helping to make up today’s 6–3 conservative majority, which tends to react with hostility to judicial precedent. But it seems that the court’s 2015 ruling will for now remain intact. Davis’s appeal failed to explain why overturning Obergefell was necessary to resolve her case. While her suit quoted lengthily from the conservative justices who criticized the ruling, overturning the ruling was not the central thrust of her legal arguments to the court. Davis had also asked the court to decide whether she had “qualified immunity” from denying the marriage licenses because same-sex marriage wasn’t really a “clearly established right,” even after the Supreme Court’s ruling. She’d previously asked the court to restore her qualified immunity defense after the Sixth Circuit agreed with a district court that that defense did not apply in this case. The Supreme Court declined. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority likely does want to overturn Obergefell—Justice Clarence Thomas has made as much clear—but this case contained far too many questions to do it. If the court were to overturn its own landmark ruling, then it would likely be in the most straightforward case possible. This story has been updated. The Democrats were furious Monday over eight senators who caved to support a deal to end the government shutdown that does not include the Affordable Care Act subsidies their party had spent weeks fighting for. The offending lawmakers include Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, Tim Kaine, Jacky Rosen, John Fetterman, Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, and independent Senator Angus King, who claimed that they’d ensured a Senate vote on extending the tax credits. Their capitulation comes after House Speaker Mike Johnson insisted for weeks that he wouldn’t promise them a vote on anything, and even if he does follow through with a vote, it’s unlikely such a measure will pass the House. Democratic lawmakers slammed their colleagues for forfeiting health care coverage for an estimated 5.1 million Americans by 2034 and increasing premiums across the marketplace. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders railed against the deal while speaking before the Senate Sunday. “If this vote succeeds, over 20 million Americans are gonna see at least a doubling in their premiums in the Affordable Care Act,” he said. “For certain groups of people, it will be a tripling and a quadrupling of their premiums. There are people who will now be paying 50 percent of their limited incomes for health care. Does anybody in the world think that makes sense?” Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth said her colleagues had taken a bad deal, and that she would not vote for a deal that wouldn’t shield tax credit recipients “from [Donald] Trump’s vindictive and malicious efforts in exchange for a vague promise from the least trustworthy Republican Party in our nation’s history.” House Democrats, who will now have to vote on the deal, tore into their upper chamber colleagues for backing off their only request. Washington Representative Pramila Jayapal called the deal a “giant betrayal of the American people”; New York Representative Ritchie Torres posted that he would vote “no” on the Democrats’ “unconstitutional surrender”; and Minnesota Representative Angie Craig wrote on X, “If people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you.” Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton wrote on X, “Caving now makes no sense.” Moulton was among several lawmakers who blamed Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—who voted “no” but apparently knew about the plan to fold—for failing to keep Democrats united. “Tonight is another example of why we need new leadership,” Moulton wrote in a separate post. “If @ChuckSchumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare.” He then asked Senator Ed Markey, whom Moulton is attempting to primary, if he might now join his Massachusetts colleague in opposing Schumer. Wisconsin Representative Mark Pocan also subtweeted Schumer, referring to his refusal to support New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. “Don’t endorse or say who you voted for in NYC despite there being a Dem candidate. Get Dem Senators to negotiate a terrible ‘deal’ that does nothing real about healthcare. Screw over a national political party. Profile of scourge? Next,” Pocan wrote on X Sunday. California Representative Ro Khanna also said the vote was a sign Democrats needed new management. “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?” he wrote on X Sunday. And Graham Platner, who is running to replace Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins, wrote on X: “Chuck Schumer is not built for this moment.” California Governor Gavin Newsom summed the situation up the most succinctly. “Pathetic,” he wrote on X Sunday.

America on the Brink: Corruption, Chaos, and Crumbling Institutions

Chaos reigns as Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, air travel collapse, SNAP aid battles rage, Court rejects Kim Davis, and MLB reels from rigged pitches.

A U.S. appeals court Sunday night denied the Trump administration’s efforts to stop the release of full funding for November’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments as ordered by a lower court judge. The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit said a district court had acted within its discretion in concluding “the overwhelming evidence of widespread harm” from halting the payments outweighed the potential harm to the government and the Child Nutrition Programs. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision, prolonging the tug-of-war over the nation’s largest public initiative to combat hunger. Tens of millions of Americans are at risk of food insecurity as winter nears. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Friday temporarily blocked the district court order until the 1st Circuit issued its ruling. The Supreme Court’s administrative stay will expire 48 hours after the 1st Circuit’s ruling. On Monday morning, Jackson issued an order directing the Trump administration to tell the Supreme Court by 11 a.m. whether it plans to continue trying to pause the lower court rulings. If it does intend to seek a stay, Jackson wrote, the Trump administration must submit its filing in the case by 4 p.m. Monday. She also told plaintiffs in the case pushing to release SNAP benefits — a group that includes several cities and nonprofits — to respond by 8 a.m. Tuesday. The 1st Circuit court’s Sunday night ruling is the latest in a legal battle that has played out for weeks involving SNAP, a program relied on by 42 million Americans. The government shutdown has thrown funding for the program in limbo even as various lawsuits play out. (The Senate on Sunday voted to take the first step toward reopening the government, though the process could take several days. The House would also need to pass any measure.) The Trump administration said it was ready to make partial payments for November benefits while the shutdown continued, but the U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island directed the administration to make full payments by Friday by using other funds. “Such conduct is more than poor judgment; it is arbitrary and capricious,” wrote McConnell, who was appointed by President Barack Obama. SNAP, also known as food stamps, is a vital lifeline for millions of people who rely on it to afford groceries. The Trump administration had told state officials Friday that it was working to release the benefits to comply with the judge’s order, suggesting that the money would indeed be disbursed. But the administration also asked the Supreme Court to halt that order. In her ruling Friday that temporarily paused the lower court’s directives, Jackson — who oversees cases from that appellate court — did not rule on the legal arguments in the case. She wrote that a short-term stay was needed “to facilitate the First Circuit’s expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion.” With the late-hour Supreme Court order, many of the country’s poorest families woke Saturday morning uncertain whether they would continue to receive aid to restock their cupboards. Before the decision, several states were ready to reload debit cards with money. Democrats criticized the Trump administration, contending it was allowing Americans to go hungry. “President Trump’s cruelty knows no bounds,” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) said on X. The back-and-forth court rulings have led to different outcomes for SNAP recipients across the country. Scheduled SNAP payments in Massachusetts went out Saturday morning, according to Healey. But North Carolina was able to issue only partial-month SNAP benefits on Friday morning and had to pause full payments over the weekend. “This is about a basic necessity — food — being caught in the middle of political chaos,” North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) said in a statement. “The hard-working people and families who rely on SNAP benefits deserve certainty, not confusion about whether they’ll be able to put meals on the table this weekend and the rest of the month.”

As the ongoing government shutdown was poised to begin in late September, three members of the Senate Democratic conference — Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto, Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman and Maine’s Angus King — broke party ranks and voted with the Republican majority to prevent the breakdown. That gave GOP leaders 55 votes, five short of the 60-vote threshold. At that point, the Republican plan, in a nutshell, could be summarized in one word: wait. GOP leaders, in the White House and on Capitol Hill, assumed that just enough Senate Democrats would cave under pressure. Those assumptions proved true. MSNBC reported overnight: After nearly six weeks of a painful shutdown, a critical number of Senate Democrats backed a Republican funding bill to reopen government — with little to show for holding out so long. The breakthrough, which came together suddenly on day 40 of the shutdown, offers Democrats few new concessions beyond what Republicans had already proposed. There’s quite a bit to this, so let’s unpack the details. Is the shutdown over? Not yet. The Sunday night vote in the Senate was a procedural vote to advance a bill intended to end the shutdown. It received 60 votes, but the underlying legislation still needs to pass. Who caved? In addition to Cortez Masto, Fetterman and King, who’ve consistently voted with Republicans to end the shutdown, five other Senate Democrats sided with the GOP on the procedural vote: Dick Durbin of Illinois, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Jackie Rosen of Nevada and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. (Durbin and Shaheen, it’s worth noting for context, are retiring at the end of their current terms.) Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, meanwhile, voted with most Democrats against the package. Did they get anything in exchange for their votes? Not much. The deal (to the extent that it can fairly be described as a “deal”) includes a three full-year appropriations bills to fund some federal departments through the end of the fiscal year, money to fully fund for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and reverses Donald Trump’s shutdown layoffs (also known as “reduction-in-force” notifications, or RIFs). What about the Affordable Care Act, which was largely the point of the shutdown? Republicans promised Democrats there will soon be a vote on extending the expiring ACA subsidies. For health care advocates, does this offer some reason for hope? Not really. Even if there is a vote, there’s no reason to assume it will pass the GOP-led chamber. And even if it were to pass, there’s no guarantee that the Republican-led House would care. So why in the world did these eight senators cave? According to King, it was time to surrender because the status quo “wasn’t working.” Was he right? No. The public has blamed the president and his party; Democrats received a dramatic boost from the electorate five days before the Sunday night vote, which should’ve stiffened spines; Trump’s approval rating is sinking; and GOP officials were increasingly divided against one another. The pieces, in other words, were in place for Democrats to stand firm in support of a popular cause. Eight of them folded anyway. So what happens now? In the coming days, the Senate will vote on the underlying agreement, which is likely to pass. It would then move to the House, which hasn’t done any work whatsoever in nearly two months. If all goes according to plan, we won’t have to worry about any more government shutdowns for a while, right? Wrong. As MSNBC’s report added, “Even if, as expected, both chambers pass the bill and President Donald Trump signs it, most of the government will only be funded through that stopgap bill going until Jan. 30.” In other words, this new agreement funds the government through a temporary spending package known as a continuing resolution (also known as a CR). If signed into law, it will expire in 11 weeks, at which point most of the federal government will face the prospect of another shutdown. Watch this space.

Flight timings and cancellations are displayed on the departures board, a month into the ongoing U.S. government shutdown, at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia, U.S., November 9, 2025. Flight cancellations were again piling up on Monday as air traffic controller shortages, worsened by the longest-ever U.S. government shutdown, snarled air travel coast to coast and President Donald Trump threatened to dock air traffic controllers’ pay if they didn’t show up to work. On Monday, 1,432 of the 25,733 scheduled flights across the country were canceled, around 5.5% “and growing,” according to aviation-data firm Cirium. Last week, the Trump administration ordered airlines to cut flights at 40 major U.S. airports starting with 4% reductions last Friday and ramping up to 10% by this coming Friday, Nov. 14. “All Air Traffic Controllers must get back to work, NOW!!!,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, adding that he would recommend $10,000 bonuses for any air traffic controllers who didn’t take any time off during the shutdown. He said those who don’t immediately return to work would be “docked.” Disruptions over the weekend totaled 18,576 flights delayed and 4,519 canceled, according to FlightAware. Cancellations spilled over from regional, short-haul jets — which the largest U.S. airlines rely on for around half of domestic flights — to mainline flying. United Airlines and Delta Air Lines were each offering flight attendants extra pay to pick up flights, according to company messages seen by CNBC. Such extra pay is common during storms or other disruptions. The airlines didn’t immediately comment. A sign of how severe air travel disruptions have become during the government shutdown: Sunday’s 2,631 U.S. flight cancellations, 10% of the day’s schedule, marked the 4th worst day since January 2024, Cirium said. In comparison, on Friday morning, as Trump administration-mandated flight cuts took effect, cancellations ranked 72nd since the start of last year. The disruptions that upended the travel plans for hundreds of thousands of travelers forced them to look for alternative transportation. Car rental company Hertz last week reported an increase in one-way rental demand. There’s also been increased demand for private jet flights in recent days, according to the CEO of charter and fractional ownership company Flexjet. Though the Trump administration order didn’t initially require private aviation to cut in the same way as commercial airlines, the Federal Aviation Administration on Monday began limiting those flights at a dozen U.S. airports. However, many private jet operators don’t use the busiest commercial airports, said the National Business Aviation Association. Air traffic controllers missed their second paycheck of the shutdown on Monday, though they are still required to work. Some of them have taken second jobs to make ends meet, government and union officials have said. “Now, they must focus on child care instead of traffic flows. Food for their families instead of runway separation,” Nick Daniels, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said at a press conference on Monday. “The added stress leads to fatigue, the fatigue has led to the erosion of safety and the increased risk every day that this shutdown drags on.” The Senate made progress overnight on a deal that could end the shutdown, but it has not yet approved a funding bill. Daniels said that it isn’t yet clear how long it would take for controllers to receive backpay for their work. In the shutdown that ended in 2019, it took about two and a half months before the workers were made whole, he said. This is breaking news. Check back for updates.

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request that it consider overturning its landmark decision to legalize same-sex marriage a decade ago. The court, without comment, declined the petition, filed by Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who gained national attention in 2015 when she defied a court order and refused to issue same-sex licenses because of her religious beliefs. She had asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order that required her to pay more than $300,000 to a couple denied a marriage license — and to overturn the same-sex marriage ruling from 2015. At least four of the nine justices would have needed to vote to hear Ms. Davis’s case and revisit the marriage precedent, a major step that many legal experts had said they were not expecting the court to take. Still, the justices’ consideration of Ms. Davis’s petition had set off alarms among gay Americans, who were already reeling from the Trump administration’s targeting of programs and funding that benefit L.G.B.T.Q. individuals. Gay Americans and their allies had been on alert since the Supreme Court’s conservative majority eliminated the nationwide right to abortion after 50 years, showing a willingness to undo longstanding legal precedent. In that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately to urge reconsideration of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which recognized gay marriage nationwide. Polls show that same-sex marriage now has broad public support. More than three dozen House Republicans helped pass legislation in 2022 that required states and the federal government to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who argued the Obergefell case before the Supreme Court, praised the court’s action. “Today, millions of Americans can breathe a sigh of relief for their families, current or hoped for, because all families deserve equal rights under the law,” she said in a statement. Ms. Davis became a symbol of religious opposition to same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court’s decision in 2015. She spent five nights in jail after she was found in contempt of court for defying a federal order to issue licenses to same-sex couples. David Ermold and David Moore, a Kentucky couple, sued Ms. Davis after they had been refused a license and prevailed at trial in 2023. Ms. Davis was ordered to pay the couple $360,000 in damages and lawyers’ fees. She appealed the judgment, claiming First Amendment protection from liability and asserted that the court had wrongly recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and should reverse its decision in Obergefell. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Ms. Davis in March, citing a recent Supreme Court decision that found public officials acting in their official capacity are not protected by the First Amendment. Public officials cannot “wield the authority of the state to violate the constitutional rights of citizens if the official believes she is ‘follow[ing] her conscience,’” wrote Judge Helene N. White, a nominee of President George W. Bush. In a concurring opinion, Judge Chad Readler, a nominee of President Trump, quoted an earlier ruling that said Ms. Davis had taken “the law into her own hands.” Mathew Staver, a lawyer for Ms. Davis, asserted that the Obergefell opinion was “egregiously wrong from the start” and said his organization, Liberty Counsel, would continue to work to reverse it. “It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell,” he said in a statement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and others accused of backing the Republican’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The “full, complete, and unconditional” pardon applies only to federal crimes, and none of the dozens of Trump allies named in the proclamation were ever charged federally over the bid to subvert the election won by Democrat Joe Biden. It doesn’t impact state charges, though state prosecutions stemming from the 2020 election have hit a dead end or are just limping along. The move, however, underscores Trump’s continued efforts to promote the idea that the 2020 election was stolen from him even though courts around the country and U.S. officials found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome. It follows the sweeping pardons of the hundreds of Trump supporters charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, including those convicted of attacking law enforcement. Among those also pardoned were Sidney Powell, an attorney who promoted baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election, John Eastman, another lawyer who pushed a plan to keep Trump in power, and Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who championed Trump’s efforts to challenge his election loss. Also named were Republicans who acted as fake electors for Trump and were charged in state cases accusing them of submitting false certificates that confirmed they were legitimate electors despite Biden’s victory in those states. The proclamation, posted online late Sunday by pardon attorney Ed Martin, explicitly says the pardon does not apply to the president himself. The pardon described efforts to prosecute the Trump allies as “a grave national injustice perpetrated on the American people” and said the pardons were designed to continue “the process of national reconciliation.” Giuliani and others have denied any wrongdoing, arguing they were simply challenging an election they believed was tainted by fraud. “These great Americans were persecuted and put through hell by the Biden Administration for challenging an election, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an emailed statement. Those pardoned were not prosecuted by the Biden administration, however. They were charged only by state prosecutors who operate separately from the Justice Department. Trump himself was indicted on federal felony charges accusing him of working overturn his 2020 election defeat, but the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith was abandoned in November after Trump’s victory over Democrat Kamala Harris because of the department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. Giuliani, Powell, Eastman and Clark were alleged co-conspirators in the federal case brought against Trump but were never charged with federal crimes. Giuliani, Meadows and others named in the proclamation had been charged by prosecutors in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin over the 2020 election, but the cases have repeatedly hit roadblocks or have been dismissed. A judge in September dismissed the Michigan case against 15 Republicans accused of attempting to falsely certify Trump as the winner of the election in that battleground state. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, was one of the most vocal supporters of Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of large-scale voter fraud after the 2020 election. He has since been disbarred in Washington, D.C., and New York over his advocacy of Trump’s bogus election claims and lost a $148 million defamation case brought by two former Georgia election workers whose lives were upended by conspiracy theories he pushed. Eastman, a former dean of Chapman University Law School in Southern California, was a close adviser to Trump in the wake of the 2020 election and wrote a memo laying out steps Vice President Mike Pence could take to stop the counting of electoral votes while presiding over Congress’ joint session on Jan. 6 to keep Trump in office. Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office, also is facing possible disbarment in Washington over his advocacy of Trump’s claims. Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over letter he drafted after the 2020 election that said the department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have impacted the election in Georgia and other states. Clark wanted the letter sent to Georgia lawmakers, but top Justice Department officials refused. Clark said in a social media post on Monday that he “did nothing wrong” and “shouldn’t have had to battle this witch hunt for 4+ years.”

Nov. 9 (UPI) -- Emmanuel Clase de la Cruz and Luis Leandro Ortiz Ribera, two pitchers with the Cleveland Guardians of Major League Baseball, were indicted Sunday for taking bribes in exchange for throwing rigged pitches so bettors could profit off the illegal information. Federal prosecutors said Ortiz, 26, was arrested Sunday in Boston, Mass. Clase, 27, was already in police custody, authorities said. The grand jury indictment unsealed Sunday in a Brooklyn courthouse charges the pair of pitchers with honest services wire fraud conspiracy, conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery and money-laundering conspiracy. "Integrity, honesty and fair play are part of the DNA of professional sports. When corruption infiltrates the sport, it brings disgrace not only to the participants but damages the public trust in an institution that is vital and dear to all of us," U.S. Attorney for the Eastern of New York Joseph Nocella Jr. said in a statement announcing the indictment. Related Federal prosecutors allege the conspiracy began around May 2023 when Clase, a relief pitcher agreed with bettors to rig so-called prop bets on pitches he threw. Ortiz allegedly agreed to join the conspiracy in June. The indictment states at least two bettors were involved in the conspiracy who allegedly used two online betting platforms to make their illegal wagers. According to the document, Clase agreed with a person identified as Bettor-1 around May of 2023 to throw specific pitches, often balls and slower sliders, on the first pitches when brought in as relief during a game. In one instance referenced in the document, Clase allegedly threw a pitch slower than 94.95 mph into the dirt "well before home plate." Bettor-1 and others won about $38,000 on the pitch, according to the document. In another instance, in late June 2025, after Ortiz allegedly joined the conspiracy, Ortiz agreed to throw a rigged pitch in exchange for $7,000. Clase allegedly was also paid $7,000 for arranging the interaction. The pitch was to be thrown in a June 27 game, before which Ortiz allegedly withdrew $50,000 in cash, $15,000 of which was allegedly provided to an unnamed co-conspirator who bet on the rigged pitch. If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for each honest wire fraud conspiracy and honest services wire fraud conspiracy, five years for conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery and 20 years for money laundering. Ortiz is to be arraigned in the Eastern District Court of New York at a later date. Clase was entering the fourth year of his five-year, $20 million contract with the Guardians, which he signed in 2022 and runs through 2026. The indictment against Clase and Ortiz is the latest legal action taken in the last few weeks targeting illegal gambling in professional and amateur sports. On Friday, the NCAA stripped eligibility from six former men's basketball players for betting-related game manipulation. Last month, Terry Rozier of the Miami Heat and Chauncey Billups, coach of the Portland Trail Blazers, were arrested over their alleged involvement in a wide-ranging illegal sports betting and poker investigation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is voting on the first steps to end the 40-day government shutdown Sunday after a group of moderate Democrats agreed to proceed without a guaranteed extension of health care subsidies, angering many in their caucus who wanted to continue the fight. The group of three former governors — New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan and Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine — said they would vote to reopen if the Senate passed three annual spending bills and extend the rest of government funding until late January. Senate Majority Leader John Thune endorsed the deal Sunday night and called an immediate vote to begin the process of approving it. “The time to act is now,” Thune said. The deal would also include a future vote on the health care subsidies, which would not have a guaranteed outcome, and a reversal of the mass firings of federal workers that have happened since the shutdown began on Oct. 1. The full text of the deal has not yet been released. “We must not delay any longer,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins said in a Senate floor speech, adding that she is “relieved” that the shutdown appeared headed toward an end. Republicans need five Democratic votes to reopen the government. In addition to Shaheen, King and Hassan, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, home to millions of federal workers, also said he would support the agreement. After Democrats met for over two hours to discuss the proposal, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he could not “in good faith” support it. “America is in the midst of a Republican-made health care crisis,” Schumer said on the floor just ahead of the expected votes. He said Americans would “suffer immensely” and that the crisis would only get worse. “Democrats have sounded the alarm,” Schumer said, and “will not give up the fight.” Final passage of the legislation could take several days if Democrats object and draw out the process. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said that giving up the fight was a “horrific mistake.” Republicans have been working with the group of moderates as the shutdown continued to disrupt flights nationwide, threaten food assistance for millions of Americans and leave federal workers without pay. But many Democrats have warned their colleagues against giving in, arguing that they can’t end the fight without an agreement to extend the health subsidies. Returning to the White House on Sunday evening after attending a football game, Trump did not say whether he endorsed the deal. But he said, “It looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending.” A bipartisan agreement Democrats have now voted 14 times not to reopen the government as they have demanded the extension of tax credits that make coverage more affordable for health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have refused to negotiate on the health care subsidies while the government is closed, but they have been supportive of the proposal from moderate Democrats as it emerged over the last several days. The agreement would fund parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things — and extend funding for everything else until the end of January. It would take up Republicans on their longstanding offer to hold a future vote on the health care subsidies, with that vote occurring by the middle of December, the people said. The deal would reinstate federal workers who had received reduction in force, or layoff, notices and reimburses states that spent their own funds to keep federal programs running during the shutdown. It would also protect against future reductions in force through January, the people said, and guarantee all federal workers would be paid once the shutdown is over. “I have long said that to earn my vote, we need to be on a path toward fixing Republicans’ health care mess and to protect the federal workforce,” Kaine said. Alongside the funding fix, Republicans released final legislative text of three full-year spending bills Sunday. That legislation keeps a ban on pay raises for lawmakers but boosts their security by $203.5 million in response to increased threats. There’s also a provision championed by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to prevent the sale of some hemp-based products. Democratic pushback expected Republicans only need five votes from Democrats to reopen the government, so a handful of senators could end the shutdown with only the promise of a later vote on health care. Around 10 to 12 Democrats have been involved in the talks, and the three people familiar with the agreement said they had enough votes to join with Republicans and pass the deal. Many of their Democratic colleagues are saying the emerging deal is not enough. “I really wanted to get something on health care,” said Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin. “I’m going to hear about it right now, but it doesn’t look like it has something concrete.” House Democrats were also chiming in against it. Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said a deal that doesn’t reduce health care costs is a “betrayal” of millions of Americans who are counting on Democrats to fight. “Accepting nothing but a pinky promise from Republicans isn’t a compromise — it’s capitulation,” Casar said in a post on X. “Millions of families would pay the price.” Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota posted that “if people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you.” Even if the Senate were to move forward with funding legislation, getting to a final vote could take several days if Democrats who oppose the deal object and draw out the process. The first vote, which could come as soon as Sunday evening, would be to proceed to consideration of the legislation. Republicans preview health care debate There is no guarantee that the Affordable Care Act subsidies would be extended if Republicans agree to a future vote on health care. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said he will not commit to a health vote. Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19-era tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies and argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals. Other Republicans, including Trump, have used the debate to renew their yearslong criticism of the law and called for it to be scrapped or overhauled. “THE WORST HEALTHCARE FOR THE HIGHEST PRICE,” Trump said of the Affordable Care Act in a post Sunday.Shutdown effects worsen Meanwhile, the consequences of the shutdown were compounding. U.S. airlines canceled more than 2,000 flights on Sunday for the first time since the shutdown began, and there were more than 7,000 flight delays, according to FlightAware, a website that tracks air travel disruptions. Treasury Secretary Sean Duffy said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that air travel ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday will be “reduced to a trickle” if the government doesn’t reopen. At the same time, food aid was delayed for tens of millions of people as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits were caught up in legal battles related to the shutdown. More than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” as Trump’s administration is demanding states “undo” benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed those rulings. And in Washington, home to millions of federal workers who have gone unpaid, the Capital Area Food Bank said it is providing 8 million more meals than it had prepared to this budget year — a nearly 20% increase. ___ Associated Press writers Stephen Groves and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

ALT: a little boy sitting on a red couch with the words " where are your balls "

President Trump is rejecting visas for fat people. The Trump administration has ordered visa officers to deny immigrants who are obese or have certain health issues, in yet another instance of the president’s strange obsession with fat people. A Thursday directive from the State Department, sent to embassies and consulates around the world, indicates that people applying for visas to the United States may be rejected if they have certain medical conditions, on the grounds that they could take up domestic health care resources. “You must consider an applicant’s health,” the cable read. “Certain medical conditions—including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions—can require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.” The announcement then goes on to mention obesity, stating that it can be connected to asthma, sleep apnea, and high blood pressure. “All of these can require expensive, long-term care,” the cable continues. “Does the applicant have adequate financial resources to cover the costs of such care over his entire expected lifespan without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense?” Denying fat people from the U.S. because they might end up having health issues is incredibly broad, cruel, and unusual. Visa applicants are already subjected to health screenings for infectious diseases like tuberculosis and are required to have various vaccinations. “Taking into consideration one’s diabetic history or heart health history—that’s quite expansive,” immigration lawyer Sophia Genovese told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a degree of this assessment already, just not quite expansive as opining over, ‘What if someone goes into diabetic shock?’ If this change is going to happen immediately, that’s obviously going to cause a myriad of issues when people are going into their consular interviews.” This announcement comes just one day after Trump announced his “fat shot” deal with two pharmaceutical companies to lower the cost of popular weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Zepbound to around $150 per month (they currently cost around $350 per month). Trump also took time out of Thursday’s announcement to reveal exactly who was taking the weight-loss drug, outing longtime comms staffer and attack dog Steven Cheung. “Where’s Steve? Is he here? Head of public relations for the White House? He’s taking it.” Donald Trump is apparently not the point person on his own administration’s policy. In the past 24 hours, the president has repeatedly deferred questions about the mechanics of his government to his foot soldiers, deflecting the responsibilities and duties that he campaigned three times (and at one point allegedly conspired) to acquire. During an Oval Office press briefing Friday, Trump called on his press secretary Karoline Leavitt to answer a question about rising prices and affordability in his stead. “We did a great job on groceries and affordability. The only problem is the fake news, you people don’t want to report it. And in fact, I’d like to ask Karoline—where’s Karoline? I’d like to ask Karoline a question,” Trump said. But Leavitt was outside the room. “She deserted me,” Trump wailed to laughter from the room, but eventually she returned. “Karoline, could you discuss that question that was asked and how it was asked in such a fake, disgusting manner by the fake news?” Trump said. “Yeah, I just saw.… Very unfortunate that the reporter refused to address, sir, what you just said,” Leavitt said, beginning a long scolding for the attending media outlets. “Which is that you inherited the worst inflation crisis in modern American history and you are fixing it in 10 short months, and your entire administration has been tasked with this effort.” The relationship between Trump and Leavitt seems to be backward: Leavitt is supposed to elevate Trump’s original positions as his press secretary, not the other way around. But it’s not even the first instance this week in which Trump has opted out of functioning as the president. During a White House meeting with Central Asian leaders Thursday night, a sleepy Trump tapped Vice President JD Vance to speak in his stead on the topic of Kazakhstan joining the Abraham Accords—though that may have actually saved face for the administration, since the president clearly doesn’t know how to pronounce Kazakhstan. Cornell University has completely bent the knee to the Trump administration, making massive cultural and financial concessions in the process so it can get federal funding back. On Friday, the university announced that it will pay the Trump administration $30 million over three years for reasons unspecified. It will also invest $30 million in “programs that incorporate AI and robotics, such as Digital Agriculture and Future Farming Technologies.” Aside from those millions of dollars it’s shelling out, Cornell has agreed to hold “annual surveys to evaluate the campus climate for Cornell students, including the climate for students with shared Jewish ancestry,” to seek out “experts on laws and regulations regarding sanctions enforcement, anti-money laundering, and prevention of terrorist financing,” and hand over “anonymized” undergraduate admissions data directly to the federal government. The agreement will also see Cornell provide staff with Attorney General Pam Bondi’s “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination,” an anti-woke catchall memo designed to force universities to broadly pull back any kind of diversity, equity, and inclusion–adjacent policy and make culture-war-obsessed right wingers feel better about themselves. Bondi’s memo declares that “using race, sex, or other protected characteristics for employment, program participation, resource allocation, or other similar activities, opportunities, or benefits, is unlawful.” It additionally bans race-based scholarships, trans people in collegiate sports, and cultural training of any kind. “The months of stop-work orders, grant terminations, and funding freezes have stalled cutting-edge research, upended lives and careers, and threatened the future of academic programs at Cornell,” university President Michael Kotlikoff wrote in an email to the student body. This extortion is a result of a monthslong, all-out crackdown on universities and any speech that the Trump administration deems left-wing. Dangling federal funding in the face of schools unless they cave to very narrow, very biased demands will only lead to suppression and resentment. Donald Trump and his administration may be absent from COP30 climate talks in Belém, Brazil, but its attendees didn’t forget about him. Several heads of state made speeches at the conference calling out the president by name, including many from South America. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who compared Trump to Hitler at the U.N. earlier this year, said “Mr. Trump is against humankind,” while Chile’s president Gabriel Boric took aim at the president’s climate denialism. “That is a lie,” Boric said about Trump calling climate change a “con job” and a “hoax made up by people with evil intentions.” “We might have legitimate discussions about how to face these things, but we cannot deny them,” added Boric. Some alluded to Trump without mentioning his name. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president and a target of Trump’s ire, criticized “extremist forces that fabricate fake news on climate for political gain, while French President Emmanuel Macron urged his fellow leaders to “support free and independent science.” “We must choose multilateralism over isolationism, science over ideology, and action over fatalism,” Macron added. Paris was the location of a landmark climate deal 10 years ago, agreed to by 200 nations including the U.S. under President Obama, only for Trump to withdraw during his first term as president. Joe Biden’s election and re-entry into the agreement was short-lived with Trump’s reelection, and the MAGA Republican surprised nobody by immediately undoing many of his predecessor’s climate efforts. Now, the U.S. under Trump refuses to be a part of climate solutions, while the rest of the world is still trying to mitigate the crisis. President Donald Trump’s administration claims that its military strikes on foreign vessels that are allegedly smuggling drugs have targeted “unlawful combatants” engaged in an “armed conflict.” But the Associated Press reported Friday that this isn’t entirely true. Since the beginning of September, the Pentagon has announced 17 military strikes against vessels around Latin America, summarily executing more than 66 alleged drug smugglers. The Trump administration has essentially declared war against foreign cartels it claims are“nonstate armed groups,” asserting that their transport of drugs constituted “an armed attack against the United States.” But a handful of dead men identified by the AP weren’t so-called “narco-terrorists” or members of criminal gangs or cartels. And they were smuggling cocaine, not synthetic opioids responsible for killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. One man killed in the first strike was Luis “Che” Martínez, a 60-year-old local crime boss who had previously been jailed for human trafficking charges. Although the Trump administration claimed that the 11 men killed were members of Tren de Aragua, Martinez’s relatives told AP that they did not believe he was a member of that gang. Another man killed in a U.S. military strike on a vessel was Robert Sánchez, a 41-year-old fisherman and skilled boat pilot from a Venezuelan peninsula plagued by poverty. Despite the Trump administration’s claim that it was preventing the imminent transit of deadly drugs to the United States, the coastal area in Venezuela where Sánchez lived was a popular transit hub for cocaine headed for Europe. Cocaine, and other drugs bound for the United States, are typically moved through the Pacific Ocean. Another man killed was Juan Carlos “El Guaramero” Fuentes, who’d turned to smuggling after the public bus he operated broke down and the government failed to fix it. Another was Dushak Milovcic, a 24-year-old drop-out of Venezuela’s National Guard Academy. Neither of them were gang members, either. The AP’s latest findings are in line with previous disturbing admissions from the Pentagon, which told lawmakers that “they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes,” and “could not satisfy the evidentiary burden” required to detain or prosecute crew members. The Pentagon also admitted that the only drug targeted in the strike was cocaine, “a facilitating drug of fentanyl.” The Trump administration has claimed the strikes are an effort to curb drug smuggling. The government is also making plans to possibly expand its campaign to dry land—and its list of potential targets reportedly includes Venezuelan military sites. Vice President JD Vance is blatantly attacking the Constitution’s separation of powers after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program. Speaking in the White House Thursday, Vance called the ruling “absurd,” because “you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do in the midst of the Democrat government shutdown.” “What we’d like to do is to have the Democrats open up the government, of course, then we can fund SNAP, and we can also do a lot of other good things for the American people,” Vance said. “But in the midst of a shutdown, we can’t have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation.” Twitter embed It’s yet another attack on an independent judiciary from the White House, and came hours before the administration appealed the judge’s ruling Friday, with Justice Department lawyers asking for a pause. U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s decision “has thrust the Judiciary into the ongoing shutdown negotiations and may well have the effect of extending the lapse in appropriations, exacerbating the problem that the court was misguidedly trying to mitigate,” DOJ lawyers argued. “This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend.” “There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” the lawyers wrote. Meanwhile, as the Trump administration refuses to fund a food program for the destitute, they continue to bail out foreign countries and make record military purchases, even as the government shutdown costs the U.S. billions of dollars. But apparently, it’s all the fault of Democrats and meddlesome judges. Representative Elise Stefanik announced her New York gubernatorial campaign early Friday, though she may not have let her team know. The Trump loyalist’s website was still plastered in “lorem ipsum” placeholder text by the time she shared the link to her X account. But eagle-eyed critics noticed that wasn’t the only mistake on the half-baked project. The website was also riddled with basic grammatical errors, espousing classic American values such as “family first trust,” “will alternative,” and “legacy planningegal issues.” In announcing her bid for the 2026 race, Stefanik slammed New York’s current leader, Kathy Hochul, as the “worst governor in America.” “Under her failed leadership, New York is the most unaffordable state in the nation with the highest taxes, highest energy, utilities, rent, and grocery bills,” Stefanik alleged. “When New Yorkers were looking for leadership from our Governor, she bent the knee to the raging Defund the Police, Tax Hiking Communist causing catastrophe for New York families,” she continued, referring to New York City’s Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who received more than 50 percent of the citywide vote Tuesday, despite the White House’s best efforts to derail his campaign. Yet Stefanik’s apparent detestation of the democratic socialist didn’t stop her from taking a page out of Mamdani’s playbook. The top-ranking New York Republican very clearly peeled lessons from the 34-year-old’s wildly popular platform, fixating her messaging on affordability—one of Mamdani’s major policy points. “I am running for Governor to make New York affordable and safe FOR ALL,” Stefanik wrote. “FIRE HOCHUL. SAVE NEW YORK.” Hochul took the reins of New York in 2021 after ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo was forced out of Albany by two egregious scandals of his own making: allegations of sexual harassment from more than a dozen of his own staffers, and an enormous cover-up of Covid-19-related nursing home deaths. A year later, New Yorkers seemed to warm up to their unanticipated leader. Hochul won the 2022 election by more than 370,000 votes, or 7 percent of the electorate, against Republican gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin, who now serves as Donald Trump’s administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. Hochul has not yet announced whether she plans to run for another term, but Stefanik would need an explosive campaign to win over Republican and Democratic voters to thwart the incumbent. Stefanik has drawn national attention in recent years, expediently ascending the rungs of the Republican Party since she went all in on the MAGA movement. She wasn’t always in the president’s pocket, however. When Trump first ran for president, Stefanik expressed that she believed his language and behavior toward women was “offensive” and “just wrong.” Comedian Ziwe Fumudoh’s sit-down with disgraced New York City Mayor Eric Adams may have been the most ridiculous exit interview in modern history. The 20-minute conversation felt like one strange, long joke that only Ziwe was in on. The mayor flirted with his interviewer (more than 30 years his junior) several times, talked about hooking up with the Statue of Liberty, claimed that he had proof Gracie Mansion is haunted, ranted about saggy pants, and skirted around addressing his various federal indictments and scandals—which he could have gone to prison for if Trump’s DOJ didn’t drop his cases. Here are some of the other weirdest moments from the interview: 1. “Not the bulge that others would talk about” “When you on the train with that beautiful outfit you have on, and all of a sudden you see someone hanging out there and they have a bulge on they side—and not the bulge that others would talk about—then you wanna make sure they stop and they frisk,” Adams said, shooting his shot at Ziwe while simultaneously plugging NYPD stop and frisk policies that have long been racist and unconstitutional. “That felt like a threat,” Ziwe said, referring to the mayor’s innuendo. “Well you may think he has a weapon,” Adams replied. “What are you saying right now?” “What are you feeling right now?” 2. “The firmness of my body.” Ziwe asked Adams about his proclivity for night life, as he’s been known to frequent clubs, bars, and hookah and cigar lounges during his tenure. “Why do people think [at] 65 you should not be out? You know, when I get out of the shower and take a look at myself and my six-pack, and the firmness of my body, I’m living the 65 life,” Adams said. 3. Nepotism for his “ex-shorty.” The mayor was also questioned about his appointment of ex-girlfriend Jasmine Ray. Adams dated Ray from around 2014 until he broke up with her in 2021, as she details in her recent book. But in 2022, Adams created a position for her—a $161,000 gig to be the director of his “Office of Sports.” “I must ask, did you appoint Jasmine Ray as the city’s first director of sports, wellness, and recreation because she was your ex-shorty?” Ziwe asked. “Because she was good at her job, and she did it well,” Adams replied. “And so, if you met someone 10 years ago and you hung out with, and you decide 10 years later you wanted to bring them on because you know how good they are at their job? You should do so.… I’m pretty sure all of your boos you didn’t abandon them merely because you had a relationship with them once.” Adams concluded his interview with a message to democratic socialist Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. “This is New York. It’s not Cuba. It’s not China. It is the center of capitalism, not socialism. Can’t take it backwards. We made too much success. Gotta move forward.” Watch the entire interview here. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hoping to lure New York City police officers to join its ranks by suggesting their current employer doesn’t really respect them. An advertisement ICE posted to social media Thursday attempted to lure law enforcement officers away from the city they’ve supposedly sworn to protect. “NYPD OFFICERS: Join an agency that respects you, your family, and your commitment to serving in law enforcement,” the post read. It included a link to a recruitment page, claiming that the country had been “invaded by criminals and predators.” The Trump administration’s effort to poach from the NYPD’s head count comes as the law enforcement agency has only recently stopped struggling with hiring and retention, after significantly reducing education and age requirements. Meanwhile, ICE has struggled with its own recruitment “shit show,” as the agency flounders to achieve White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller’s quest to hire 10,000 so-called “Homeland Defenders” by January. Increased recruitment efforts have reportedly placed an immense strain on ICE officials, who have had to turn away more than 200 new recruits who were improperly vetted. This latest ad comes in the wake of Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory in New York City’s mayoral election, meaning that the democratic socialist is set to inherit the NYPD’s multibillion-dollar surveillance state apparatus. Mamdani has presented a new vision for public safety by planning to establish the Department of Community Safety, which will handle nonemergency 911 calls in the place of armed police officers, putting mental health, homelessness, and prevention outreach in the hands of an entirely separate agency. In the wake of Mamdani’s victory, Donald Trump seems adamant that New York City should fall to ruin, and on Thursday he threatened to gut the city’s federal funded infrastructure projects, including “bridges, and tunnels, and all of the things that were being planned for New York.” But ICE operations would still continue there, he said. “They have killers in New York, we want to get them out,” Trump said. But his administration’s latest efforts to strip the ranks of the NYPD reveals the government is far more interested in deporting immigrants than addressing crime. South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace’s explicit rant about the abuses of her ex-fiancé have come back to bite her. Patrick Bryant filed a defamation suit against the Lowcountry lawmaker Friday, noting in a social media statement that he would no longer “stay quiet” regarding Mace’s “completely false accusations.” Mace, however, did not take the news well. “What kind of guy sues his own rape victim and sues women he filmed without their knowledge, permission or consent for YEARS? Who does that?” Mace posted Friday morning. “Can’t wait for a court hearing on this!!! Put me in coach—I’m ready to testify, under oath—this guy should be rotting in a jail cell—not suing his victims!!! “HOLD THE LINE,” she added. Mace put Bryant on full blast during a House Oversight Committee hearing in May, when she alleged that he was a “predator” who had taken videos of her during the course of their relationship without her consent. (In a shocking turn of events, Mace showcased what she described as her “naked silhouette” during the hearing.) The South Carolinian also mentioned that in 2023, she discovered a trove of hidden camera nude images of women that she argued were taken by Bryant, similarly without those women’s consent. She then posted images of the other women during the hearing, though she said she had gotten permission to do so. It was all in an effort to advance two pieces of legislation that she had introduced months prior, centered on further prohibiting “video voyeurism” and expanding a “civil right of action for victims.” But people close to Mace weren’t so sure that her vulnerability was completely altruistic. In an April deposition tied to a Charleston County civil case, Mace’s former political adviser Wesley Donehue claimed that the salacious, dredged-up material was all part of a bogus extortion attempt by Mace to “gain 100 percent ownership” of homes the former couple had in Washington and South Carolina’s Isle of Palms.