Editor's note: This headline has been updated.

A social media exchange between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and conservative activist Riley Gaines ignited a firestorm among MAGA Republicans on Monday.

Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer and vocal critic of transgender women in women's sports, shared a photo on the social platform X of Ocasio-Cortez with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) at a rally in New York held Sunday.

Gaines wrote, "We're being destroyed from within."

Ocasio-Cortez reacted to her post and wrote, "Maybe if you channeled all this anger into swimming faster you wouldn’t have come in fifth."

The remark referenced Gaines's fifth-place finish at the 2022 NCAA Swimming Championships, where she tied with transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), a staunch ally of Gaines' and advocate for legislation aimed at restricting transgender women from competing in women's sports, criticized Ocasio-Cortez's comment.

In a post reacting to Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, Tuberville wrote, "What happened to 'support all women' @AOC? @Riley_Gaines_ is a 5x SEC Champion and 12x NCAA All-American. Not to mention she’s a patriot who has fought every day for women and girls. Meanwhile, AOC thinks 'women’s rights' just means abortion."

Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, energized nearly 13,000 supporters at a rally in Forest Hills, Queens, on Sunday. The event, under the slogan “New York Is Not For Sale,” featured prominent endorsements from Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.

Mamdani, who is leading in the polls, emphasized his platform focused on rent freezes, universal childcare, affordable housing and expanded education.

A robust wave of criticism has greeted the decision by President Donald Trump to demolish the entire East Wing of the White House in order to build a new 90,000-square-foot ballroom at a cost now estimated around $300 million. The ballroom project, one of the largest renovations to the People’s House in decades, has drawn sharp rebuke from preservationists, historians and ordinary citizens alike.

In a report published Sunday, the New York Times featured the views of citizens from different walks of life.

A former bank examiner, Clifford Eugene, said, “The buildings in the capital city tell us the story of where we came from.”

He described watching “footage of the East Wing crumbling into a heap of debris and dust” with sadness and disappointment.

The demolition, he added, was “just another example of an unchecked president who regularly tramples on norms.”

A history major and Marine veteran, Charles Vaughters told supporters of the project: “The people against the demolition … are just trying to find something, anything, bad about Trump.”

Leaning the other way, one Democrat, Thien Doan, said, “We’re desecrating a part of history that we should have been celebrating.”

He added: “They’re molding buildings and the country after his own image. It shouldn’t be about him. It should be about the people.”

Critics underscore that the East Wing has housed first-lady offices and public access areas, and that the replacement project lacks the kind of full public review typical of major changes to such historic buildings.

Ethics experts have also warned of donations from major corporations tied to federal contracts, calling it a potential “pay-for-access” scheme.

In an article for The Guardian published Sunday, political historian Jan‑Werner Müller argued that President Donald Trump’s obsessive push to build a grand new ballroom at the White House is about much more than hosting lavish receptions — it is a projection of power, messaging and raw symbolism.

Müller wrote that the project – including the demolition of the historic East Wing – combines classic elements of Trump’s governance style: bold physical spectacle, falsehoods about the impact of construction, disregard for preservation laws and networking via corporate giveaways to curry favor.

The writer placed the initiative in a wider pattern of far-right populist leaders who use monumental architecture to claim ownership of their nations, define a “real people,” and leave enduring legacies of dominance.

"For all these peculiarities, Trump’s disfiguring the White House fits into a larger global trend: far-right populist leaders in many countries have used spectacular architecture to advance their political agenda and, more particularly, to set their vision of a 'real people' – as in 'real Americans,' 'real Hungarians' et cetera – in stone," he wrote.

Müller explained that for Trump the ballroom becomes a stage for adulation and deal-making, a place where the fantasies of his business persona intersect with the presidency.

He added that the sheer size, the private-funding narrative and the haste to advance the project all serve to dramatise a leader reshaping the “people’s house” in his own image.

“And while size matters for all far-right leaders on one level (just think of Erdoğan’s enormous palace in Ankara), hardly anybody else would have fixated on a ballroom. Perhaps the reason is as banal as the fact that banquets and catering were one of the few business ventures in which Trump ever had genuine success; more likely, it is a space for unlimited adulation of the president and for plenty of occasions for 'deal-making.'"

The writer argued that the underlying message behind this project is: “We won and now the country is ours.”

Müller contended that Trump’s fixation on the ballroom is less about function, and more about symbol. It signals a shift from democratic institutions towards spectacle, from collective governance to personalized rule. The architecture, he added, is a statement of power, permanence and entitlement.

President Donald Trump's recent economic policies are causing significant hardship for farmers and workers in the deep red Iowa, which has traditionally supported his administration.

The New York Times highlighted the stories of Iowan farmers who are hit hard by the administration's economic agenda.

Larry Ory, an 86-year-old farmer from Earlham, Iowa, expressed disbelief upon hearing of a $20 billion U.S. bailout to Argentina, especially as Argentine soybeans began shipping to China — a market that had been vital for Iowa's soybean exports.

China halted U.S. soybean purchases following Trump's trade war, leaving American farmers without their largest customer.

The report noted that the economic strain is evident across Iowa. The state's GDP fell by 6.1 percent in the first quarter of 2025, the steepest decline after neighboring Nebraska.

Manufacturers face rising production costs due to tariffs on aluminum and steel, while meatpacking plants, which rely heavily on foreign-born workers, have been affected by changes in immigration policies. The wind energy industry, which supplies over half of Iowa's electricity, is under threat due to federal policies.

Summer Ory, who works on the family farm, likened the situation to "death by a thousand paper cuts," highlighting the cumulative impact of various economic challenges. Despite these hardships, some farmers remain hopeful.

Doug Keller, a 63-year-old farmer near Waterloo, expressed optimism that a new trade deal with China could eventually benefit farmers.

However, the growing discontent is palpable.

Josh Turek, a Democratic state representative running for the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Rep. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), noted, "People are hurting everywhere in Iowa, and they’re looking for something different."

With key elections approaching, the impact of federal policies on Iowa's economy is expected to be a central issue.

The U.S. government shutdown has disrupted the release of critical economic data, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which is essential for assessing inflation trends. The September CPI report, released on Friday, revealed that inflation rose to 3.0 percent year-over-year, up from 2.9 percent in August, primarily due to a 4.1 percent increase in gasoline prices. Core inflation, excluding food and energy, remained steady at 3.0 percent.

In an article for Salon published Sunday, writer Heather Digby Parton argued that inflation has become a "ticking time bomb" for Republicans, threatening to undermine their political standing despite claims of economic strength.

Parton wrote that while official statistics show inflation has decreased to 2.4 percent as of October 2024, public perception remains negative.

Factors such as rising beef prices and the symbolic impact of egg price spikes due to avian flu contribute to widespread dissatisfaction, even as some costs stabilize.

Parton highlighted that many voters, particularly those who remember the economic conditions of Trump's first term, are disillusioned by unmet promises to reduce living costs.

Despite Trump's assertions that tariffs have strengthened the economy, polling indicates that inflation is his lowest-rated issue, with approval ratings in the mid-30s and declining. The administration's trade policies, including the imposition of tariffs, have led to higher consumer prices, contradicting claims of economic improvement.

Economist Paul Krugman is cited in the article, noting that the economy appears stagnant, with businesses hesitant to invest amid uncertain trade policies. The government's shutdown has further delayed the release of comprehensive economic data, leaving the job market's status unclear.

The Consumer Price Index for September showed a 3 percent annual increase, the fastest pace since the beginning of the year, suggesting that inflation may be rising again.

Parton noted that the disconnect between economic indicators and public perception presents a significant challenge for Republicans.

She asserted that even Trump's persistent messaging cannot overcome the negative "vibes" felt by voters who are experiencing higher costs and stagnant wages. The situation, she argued, is a "perfect storm" of the administration's own making.

President Donald Trump's critics are accusing him of transforming government power into an instrument of retaliation, arguing that his administration’s pursuit of “retribution” against perceived enemies signals a departure from legal norms and erodes institutional independence.

In an article for The New Republic published Sunday, Paul Starr, a professor of Sociology at Princeton University, argued that Trump’s focus on revenge is not just a personal obsession but a political strategy rooted in a broader cultural reaction against decades of social change.

"The air is thick with talk of revenge, and it’s not limited to Donald Trump’s personal vendetta against individual enemies like James Comey, Letitia James, and John Bolton," the article read.

Starr wrote that Trump’s call for “retribution” against his enemies and the institutions he claims have “betrayed” his followers reflects a deep current of resentment within American politics.

Trump’s threats and acts of retaliation, Starr said, have helped him consolidate control over the Republican Party and intimidate other institutions.

Starr added that Trump’s appeal to revenge resonates with supporters who feel disempowered by the liberal and progressive movements that reshaped American life since the mid-twentieth century. The social revolutions that advanced racial equality, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, and secular values, he argued, disrupted long-standing hierarchies and provoked backlash among those who saw their traditional privileges eroded.

"For years he had been telling his followers that they had been betrayed by the nation’s leaders on diversity policies, trade, immigration, foreign wars, and much else. He would be their instrument for a historic settling of scores," Starr said of Trump.

Trump’s promise of payback, Starr wrote, channels those grievances into a demand for the restoration of lost status and dominance.

Tracing the roots of this backlash, Starr noted that earlier Republican leaders like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan courted conservative resentment but did not seek to overturn liberal reforms entirely.

Nixon’s policies, he observed, often extended the liberal project, while Reagan’s conservatism, though economically transformative, stopped short of a full social counterrevolution.

Starr argued that the decisive shift toward Trump-style politics emerged in the 1990s, when the conservative movement and Republican Party increasingly turned to fear and aggression as organizing principles. In that evolution, he argued, the politics of revenge became central to the identity of the American right.

"There have been other dark times in America’s past and other dangers we have faced and overcome. We need the courage and determination that others before us have shown in leading the country through darkness to the other side," he concluded.

President Donald Trump reportedly called then-Vice President Mike Pence a “wimp” in a heated phone call on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021.

ABC News reported Sunday that notes kept by Pence revealed his conversation with Trump during the hours before the certification of former President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

According to the notes, Trump said: “You’ll go down as a wimp.”

He added: “If you do that, I made a big mistake 5 years ago!”

According to the report, the details appear in a forthcoming book by Jonathan Karl.

Pence’s handwritten day-planner notes would have been part of the evidence proposed by special counsel Jack Smith in a prosecution plan that never reached trial.

The call occurred just hours before the Capitol breach — during a confrontation in which Trump urged Pence to block certification of the election results.

According to aides, the exchange was so tense that Trump’s daughter described it as “pretty heated.”

Conservative political commentator Tim Miller said Saturday President Donald Trump is behaving like a 12-year-old by insulting his opponents and posting content attacking former President Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

During his podcast on The Bulwark, titled "We're being governed by 12-year-olds," Miller said, "The president is 12, and everyone in the White House that works for him pretty much also is acting like they’re 12."

Miller’s comments come amid growing controversy over the official White House web pages and social-media channels being used for overtly political attacks.

Miller accused the White House of publishing juvenile mockery of Obama, Clinton and others, and of using copyrighted music and TikTok-style edits to glorify aggressive law-enforcement tactics.

The backlash deepened this month after Trump shared a widely condemned AI-generated video on his Truth Social platform in which he is depicted flying a fighter jet and dumping brown liquid purportedly over protesters at a nationwide “No Kings” demonstration.

Singer Kenny Loggins demanded removal of the video for unauthorized use of his song “Danger Zone,” calling the stunt “created with the sole purpose of dividing us.”

Miller added: “I like a sense of humor. There’s nothing wrong with joshing around… But that’s not what we’re getting. We’re getting 12-year-olds.”

The White House has defended the use of social-media posts as part of its outreach strategy, while critics say the behavior undermines the dignity of the office and fuels partisan division.

With attacks on predecessors and digital provocations now part of the public record, critics say the administration’s tone raises serious questions about political norms and presidential conduct going forward.

In an article for The New York Times published Sunday, economic commentator Kyla Scanlon argued that President Donald Trump has turned the United States into a “casino economy” — one driven by speculation, risk and illusion rather than real investment in workers or industry.

Scanlon, author of In This Economy? How Money & Markets Really Work, wrote that despite Trump’s campaign promises to revive American manufacturing, his policies have fostered an economic system built on wagers and froth, where both markets and government decisions resemble high-stakes gambling.

"What he has ushered in instead is a casino economy, built on speculation and risk. Across markets and policy, wagers on the future are being made with other people’s money at a cost that could prove catastrophic," Scanlon wrote.

She pointed to examples across sectors: the explosion of A.I. investment fueled by borrowed money, the proliferation of memecoins, the use of tariffs as political poker chips, and the growing use of digital assets as loan collateral.

Scanlon argued that the private sector is “rolling dice that the foundations of the U.S. economy will hold,” while the public sector has retreated from its role as a stabilizer. Safety nets such as Medicaid and Social Security have been weakened, she noted, leaving ordinary Americans exposed when those bets go bad.

A.I. spending, she warned, has become one of the largest speculative bubbles in history, driven by trillion-dollar wagers from Big Tech firms like Microsoft and Nvidia.

Meanwhile, tariffs and erratic currency policies have made global trade more volatile. The result, Scanlon wrote, is an economy where the rich and powerful collect the winnings while average Americans bear the losses.

“Casinos run on illusion,” she concluded. “But economies don’t have to.”