President Donald Trump got a strong legal pushback from three major media organizations — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — after banning them from the White House press pool ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Washington, DC. In an article for The Atlantic, legal expert Quinta Jurecic warns that the media ban is a "preview" of the "two-year temper tantrum" that lies ahead during the second half of Trump's second presidency.

"The whole kerfuffle was a display of both Trump's power and his impotence: damaging to democracy yet also undermining of his own authority," Jurecic explains in her Atlantic article. "What prompted this particular round of White House abuse of the press is not entirely clear. But Trump often resorts to attacking the media when he receives news he dislikes — and between rising fuel prices caused by the war in Iran, sinking poll numbers for the congressional GOP, and Trump's own declining popularity, there is a lot of bad news for the president to avoid. So he created a safe space."

Jurecic argues that Trump's "standoff with the press reflects" the "fury of a man who has grasped, however dimly, that he cannot control everything."

"Yesterday, when a judge ordered President Trump to lift a ban on journalists accessing the White House, the immediate crisis appeared to be averted: Trump had lost, and reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico largely returned to their normal work on the grounds," the attorney explains. "But the maneuver Trump had attempted is a preview of what to expect over Trump's remaining time in office — especially if Democrats take control of one or both chambers of Congress. To put it another way, the country is headed toward a two-year temper tantrum."

According to Jurecic, Trump's battle with CNN, MS NOW and Politico "is also the fury of someone insistent on exerting as much power as he can over the steadily shrinking universe of what does remain directly under his control."

"If Republicans lose unified control of Congress in the midterms," Jurecic writes, "then Trump's old allies will be less likely to swear fealty, and that universe will diminish even further. There is a danger to democracy here, but it is less the danger of a strategic shift toward authoritarianism and more the danger of petulance and stupidity. Every president struggles with irrelevance in the waning years of their power, and Trump has never been one to decline gracefully."

With the United States' 2026 midterms less than one and one-half months away, MS NOW host and former Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele is warning that President Donald Trump is quite capable of going to extremes if the elections aren't going his way — including a declaration of "martial law."

During a Friday night, September 25 broadcast of MS NOW's show "The Weeknight," Steele told co-host Simone Sanders and Voto Latino CEO Maria Teresa Kumar, "Well, look, this has been the end game. This has been the end game. We've talked about it for well over a year now. The end game has always been, when it comes to this election — and we'll see the same thing play out in 2028 — this president wants to demand the outcome he wants, and he will do anything he can to get it. And if that means the Insurrection Act, if that means martial law — whatever it will take, he's going to put into play."

The Never Trump conservative continued, "He's got a DOJ, he's got an FBI. He's got a national security apparatus set up to do exactly that."

Steele pointed to recent comments by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), who, during an MS NOW appearance, warned that Trump's voter database proposal "creates a lot of opportunity for mischief" this close to the midterms. Raskin told MS NOW's Alicia Menendez that he fears the possibility for "valid, eligible voters to be disenfranchised."

Sanders noted that "Trump's Justice Department is also enlisting hundreds of Department of Justice employees to hunt down examples of noncitizens casting a ballot."

Sanders told Steele and Kumar, "But you know what? They are struggling to deliver, since noncitizen voting is extremely rare in this country … Trump-aligned election deniers — well, they are now urging him to declare martial law if the midterms don't go his way."

The 2026 midterms are set for Tuesday, November 3. Democratic strategists are feeling optimistic about their chances of flipping the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans have only a small majority under speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana). And many Democratic insiders believe that the U.S. Senate, although an uphill climb, is also in play.

In order to regain control of the Senate, Democrats will have to flip at least four GOP-held seats while holding all of the seats they are defending.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

During a speech at Southern Methodist University in Texas on Tuesday, September 8, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had a message for the bond market: "I am the house now." But according to journalist Joseph Zeballos-Roig, "the house is getting a lot of egg on it."

In a late September op-ed for MS NOW, Zeballos-Roig argues that Bessent "dared traders to cross him" during that September 8 speech — and is getting more than he bargained for.

"The $32 trillion American bond market is generating a flood of headlines lately," Zeballos-Roig writes on MS NOW's website. "Why? The instrument that the U.S. government uses to fund its own activities is going haywire. The 10-year Treasury yield is trading at its highest level since the run-up to the financial crisis in 2007, and a similar spike has been recorded for the 30-year yield, which reached its highest point since 2004. These bonds influence mortgages, auto and corporate loans, so it carries real financial consequences for Main Street, as Navy Federal Credit Union Chief Economist Heather Long has pointed out."

Zeballos-Roig continues, "It's harder now for Americans to lock in personal loans under favorable terms or to refinance a mortgage without paying a lot more. The average 30-year mortgage rate has leapt to just over 7 percent, which started climbing earlier this year after the United States partnered with Israel to launch a military campaign against Iran that currently has no end in sight. Bond unrest is also bad news for Wall Street, since higher yields can squeeze corporate borrowing and ultimately constrain their profits. Yields move opposite to prices, and their steady climb signals that investors are demanding higher interest rates in exchange for buying government debt."

Zeballos-Roing notes that "higher rates carry financial consequences for the U.S. government."

"By one estimate," the journalist says, "rising interest rates means the U.S. national debt will be $1.5 trillion larger than originally projected by the Congressional Budget Office over the next decade … Investors simply haven't been swayed by the Trump administration's aggressive intervention into the bond market. They're unnerved about the U.S. sitting on a $40 trillion mountain of debt and anxious about inflation setting in due to the Iran war. So far, the ongoing spike showcases Bessent's failure to artificially suppress yields and get the situation under control. He set out to be the 'nation's top bond salesman,' drumming up demand for these assets so that mortgage rates fall, along with overall borrowing costs. His approach has fallen flat. Bessent does recognize that the so-called bond vigilantes — traders who rebel against government policies they view as inflationary or promoting market instability — can discipline spendthrift governments and inflict political chaos once provoked … The bond market isn't buying what Bessent is selling."

In the past, television journalist and former Fox News pundit Geraldo Rivera was on very friendly terms with President Donald Trump. But Rivera, now 83, lashed out at Trump when he refused to accept the results of the United States' 2020 presidential election. And now, Rivera is highly critical of Trump's ban of three major media organizations — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — from the White House press pool.

The ban came days before Trump's White House meeting with visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping. During an appearance on MS NOW, Michael McFaul — who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama — was appalled that reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico were kept out of the White House while members of state-owned Chinese media were granted access.

In a Friday, September 25 post on X, formerly Twitter, Rivera wrote, "President Trump's ban on WH media was as badly timed as it was Unconstitutional. He wanted maximum exposure of his grand summit with the Chinese leader. He ended up playing in the dark to an audience of nobody."

Rivera has been working in media since the 1960s. The native New Yorker became a reporter for New York City's WABC-TV in 1970, and he later became known for his work on national ABC News programs like "20/20" and "Nightline." His daytime talk show, "Geraldo," debuted in 1987 and lasted 11 years.

In a 2024 interview with journalist Molly Jong-Fast for Interview Magazine, Rivera explained why he turned against Trump and endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president.

Rivera recalled, "Our relationship dated back to the 1970s, when he was coming up in the real estate business. I met him when he was trying to rehabilitate the old Commodore Hotel on 42nd Street, which was a haven for junkies and hookers and crime and the rest of it. And he succeeded. I chronicled that in many ways. We went to the fights together, hung out at Trump Tower. Fox was just a few blocks away. I did not vote for him in 2016, but I supported him. And he was very generous, very gracious, inviting me to the White House, giving me access interviews. I did several hour-long interviews with him during his presidency. During the tumultuous four years, I defended him against what I thought was an unfair onslaught on the Russia business."

But when Trump refused to accept the 2020 election results, Rivera lamented, he crossed a dangerous line.

Rivera told Jong-Fast, "Every day, he got worse and worse, more and more radicalized. The people around him, increasingly a motley crew: Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Gen. Mike Flynn — just fringy kind of people. And he dug in. He went to Georgia, if you recall, beat the Republican Party's chances for the Senate there with his irrational behavior and his narcissism. Then, of course, you get to January 6, when it seemed to me that he incited and then unleashed the attack on the United States Capitol, the soul of our democracy, in his flamboyantly irrational and illegal assault on democracy itself."

On December 14–15, 2026, the Group of 20 Leaders’ Summit (G-20) will be held at U.S. President Donald Trump's resort in Doral, Florida near Miami. Trump invited Russian President Vladmir Putin to attend, but on Friday, September 25, a group of seven Republican senators joined Democrats in urging Trump to "reconsider" the invitation.

In a bipartisan letter to Trump, the seven Republican senators — Texas' John Cornyn, Mississippi's Roger Wicker, Kansas Jerry Moran, North Carolina's Thom Tillis, Utah's John Curtis, Oklahoma's Alan Armstrong and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) — wrote, "Given President Putin's continued actions against the Ukrainian people and U.S. national security interests, we urge you to reconsider granting President Putin the stature and legitimacy to appear in the United States as a world leader at the G20 Leaders' Summit."

The Democratic senators who signed the letter included Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse, Colorado's Michael Bennet, Virginia's Tim Kaine, Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal, Delaware's Chris Coons and Arizona's Ruben Gallego.

The senators also told Trump, "It is troubling that, despite being sanctioned, these individuals have been given access to participate in G20 forums hosted in the United States. The G20 is intended to foster international cooperation on critical issues including finance, trade and global economic stability. As Russia continues its war against Ukraine and refuses to agree to a just and lasting peace agreement, its government should not be afforded a business-as-usual treatment alongside other nations at G20 events."

The Hill's Helen Huiskes notes that the Republican senators who signed the letter to Trump "went beyond the usual Trump critics in the GOP."

"Their support on the letter, which urged Trump to rescind any such invitation to Putin and any other sanctioned Russian officials, demonstrates how Senate Republicans generally still support Ukraine in its war with Russia, and some have become more willing to push back on Trump amid his low approval rating," Huiskes reports. "The letter also cited the recently passed Russia-Iran sanctions bill, named for former Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was one of the staunchest defenders of Ukraine in the Senate before his death in July. That bill increased sanctions on Russia, hoping to squeeze it economically as its aggression in Ukraine continues four years after invading that country."

A decade ago, conservative Washington Post columnist George Will expressed his disdain for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement by leaving the Republican Party and becoming an independent. And he hasn't grown any more favorable to Trump or MAGA since then. In a late September Post column, Will is highly critical of MAGA Christians — including Vice President JD Vance — and argues that they mirror, in many ways, the "socialists" they condemn.

"Undeterred by the axiom that there can be indecent exposure of the mind as well as the body," the 85-year-old Will writes in the Post, "the Democratic Socialists of America candidly announce their agenda. Religious 'integralists' should be similarly explicit. DSAers want to scrap the Constitution in order to facilitate confiscating wealth, private property and other impediments to government-enforced equality and social perfection. Christian integralists, who are disproportionately Catholic, are devout and determined to make the nation more so. They would enliven politics if they would specify the measures they advocate to, as they mistakenly say, return America to being a 'Christian nation.'"

Many MAGA Christians are fundamentalist Protestant evangelicals, but the ultra-MAGA Vance is a convert to Catholicism. And Will cites Vance as a prime example of an "integralist."

"Integralists want to integrate spiritual and temporal (government) power, subordinating the latter to the former," Will argues. "Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, the most intellectually interesting integralist, opposes 'the relentless expansion of individualistic autonomy,' and those who are 'enslaved to the original meaning of the Constitution.' Integralists have no 'horror of political domination and hierarchy' because law — government — must be 'parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits.'"

Will continues, "Vermeule's constitutionalism aims not to 'protect liberty' as 'an end in itself,' because 'constraints on power are good only derivatively,' by serving the integralist agenda, which requires robust parental government. Government should 'direct' individuals and society toward virtuous living through 'respect for the authority of rule and of rulers; respect for the hierarchies needed for society to function.' Well."

'Integralist' Christianity, according to Will, runs counter to "libertarian" principles.

"Integralists who speak, as Vance does, of 'the Christian foundation of this country,' are baptizing the Founders without their permission," Will writes. "The six most important — Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton — held, tepidly, various flavors of deism, which says a clockmaker deity got the universe going, then His attention wandered. The six tended toward unitarianism, the watery belief that there is at most one God. Integralists, like socialists, promise political transformations that will achieve salvation for our fallen world. Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John 18:36). Integralists, like socialists, are more ambitious."

Although the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had plenty of turmoil during Donald Trump's first presidency — Attorneys General Jeff Sessions and, later, Bill Barr, both left DOJ on very bad terms with Trump — DOJ has seen a lot more departures since Trump's return to the White House in January 2025. And according to The Hill, new internal documents show just how bad the "massive exodus" at DOJ is.

Reporters Rebecca Beitsch and Samuel Marks, in The Hill, explain, "A drastically diminished Justice Department workforce is struggling to keep up with its civil side caseloads, according to documents obtained by The Hill and NewsNation. A series of charts, apparently inadvertently shared and then recalled, show how the number of attorneys within the civil division has plummeted under the Trump administration."

The charts, according to Beitsch and Marks, "substantiate a dynamic long suspected" and show that DOJ "would not be able to swiftly replace a crew of veteran attorneys after a wave of firings and resignations."

Stacey Young, founder of the DOJ alumni group Justice Connection, described the departures as DOJ as a "massive exodus."

"The workload has skyrocketed, particularly in the civil division offices that have lost the most lawyers," Young told The Hill. "So what we're seeing is that the lawyers who are left are overworked, stressed out, many have lost those who led their office because they were pushed out by this administration. And because of the difficult circumstances under which they're working, I expect that the rate of departures won't slow down anytime soon."

Young continued, "Putting out this data seems to me like a desperate cry for help. It seems like the civil division knows how badly it needs more funds to hire more lawyers to make up for the purge of longstanding experts that they caused."

Beitsch and Marks, citing U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) figures, note that DOJ "has lost roughly 10,000 workers since the start of the Trump administration — a metric that includes component agencies like the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Prisons."

"One chart reviewing impact on each branch within the division detailed how caseload was skyrocketing — with work for the commercial litigation branch jumping a whopping 84 percent per attorney, while lawyers in the Office of Immigration Litigation saw their workload jump 63 percent," Beitsch and Marks report. "Attorneys who work on appeals saw their caseloads jump 54 percent while lawyers in the federal programs branch — those who work on defending executive orders among other administration priorities — saw their workloads jump 44 percent."

A former DOJ staffer, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told The Hill, "We never had attrition like we've had. There's been a lot of reasons for that."

Jennifer Ricketts, a former DOJ attorney, told The Hill, "They were aware of how much, in the first Trump administration, they tried to stretch the law and put us in positions where we struggled to make sure we satisfied our professional responsibilities — and folks did not want to have to go through that exercise again … I think folks knew maybe not the scope of what was coming, but they knew none of it was going to be pleasant."

President Donald Trump is calling for his proposed "triumphal arch" near Arlington National Cemetery to be used as a "top grade military complex" that would include snipers and drone storage. But he's getting a strong pushback from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), herself a U.S. Army veteran who lost both of her legs in the Iraq War.

In a strongly worded Friday, September 25 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford, the 58-year-old Duckworth wrote, "The FAA and DoD (U.S. Department of Defense) must reject this foolhardy plan and instead focus on increasing the safety of the airspace."

CBS News' Kris Van Cleave explains, "The FAA determined, last week, that the 250-foot arch, which is being constructed near Arlington National Cemetery, poses no hazard to flights coming into and departing from Reagan Airport. The letter was exclusively obtained by CBS News. (Duckworth) called Mr. Trump's announcement, made in a Truth Social post over the weekend, 'bizarre, unhinged early morning social media rants.'"

The "triumphal arch" is among the many proposed makeover projects that Trump has been pursuing in the Washinton, DC area. Trump's other proposals range from a lavish White House ballroom to renovations on the Kennedy Center.

"In the letter sent Friday," Van Cleave reports, "Duckworth, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation, Space, and Innovation, took Trump administration officials to task for 'wasting time, energy and taxpayer dollars on yet another Trump vanity project.' She called it 'particularly outrageous' after what she described as the 'joint failure' of the FAA and Defense Department 'to effectively implement corrective actions that were recommended' by the NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) following the January 2025 midair collision near Reagan Airport that killed 67 people."

Van Cleave adds, "The NTSB made 52 safety recommendations following the collision between a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet that was landing at Reagan Airport."

Duckworth didn't hold back in the letter, telling Hegseth and Bedford, "It is disturbing to see Federal officials devote enormous attention to an unnecessary, proposed structure while the NTSB and the public are still demanding action on recommendations intended to prevent another catastrophic collision in our skies. The American people cannot afford to stand witness to Trump's risky plan to place a 250-foot structure along a busy approach path, especially if he follows through on plans to station snipers on the arch and fly drones ... in the already congested airspace."

Chinese President Xi Jinping is visiting Washington, DC for his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. The leaders, according to CNN, are "expected to discuss key issues" that include "trade, Taiwan and the war in Iran." Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, discussed the meeting during a Friday morning appearance on MS NOW — and was vehemently critical of Trump's handling of U.S./China policy as well as his ban of three major media outlets (CNN, MS NOW and Politico) from the White House press pool.

During the panel, MS NOW host Peter Alexander, McFaul and former CIA Director John O. Brennan argued that the timing — a press ban during a U.S. visit from the Chinese president — was terrible. Alexander pointed out that members of state-operated Chinese meeting were allowed in the White House while reporters from top U.S. media outlets were shut out.

McFaul told Alexander and Brennan, "This is embarrassing for the United States of America. We used to be the leader of the free world. Countries used to look up to us because of our freedoms of press … This makes us look weak. I don't understand why President Trump doesn't understand how to connect these dots when we are now talking about this, not talking about national interests that he might be pursuing with Xi Jinping today. That is a sign of weakness — not a sign of strength. So, it may be legal, but it's also really bad foreign policy."

The Trump/Jinping meeting comes at a time of escalating fears that the People's Republic of China, under Jinping, will invade Taiwan — an important ally of the United States.

Brennan was highly critical of Trump as well, telling McFaul and Alexander, "I think (Jinping is) able to see through Donald Trump's rhetoric."

The former CIA director made a comparison between Trump's meeting with Jinping and Obama's meeting with former Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2011. Brennan argued that while Obama made a point of highlighting the United States' press freedoms during the Jintao meeting, Trump was doubling down on a White House press ban during Jinping's visit.

Brennan told McFaul and Alexander, "That's because President Obama believes strongly in a free press, believes strongly in a rule of law … It underscores how much Donald Trump is abusing the rule of law, doesn't respect it … I think Michael would agree with me: Donald Trump's weakness right now (is) that he's afraid of the free press. He's afraid of being exposed. Even the red-carpet treatment of President Xi Jinping, which is, you know, going overboard — it sends a signal that Donald Trump needs Xi Jinping more than Xi Jinping needs Donald Trump. And the fact that he is engaged in these fights with the courts, with the Constitution — again, it just shows the world, and it shows, you know, hopefully all American citizens, just how afraid he is of being exposed."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

With diesel prices continuing to soar and the United States' 2026 midterms less than one and one-half months away, President Donald Trump is proposing an export ban for U.S. diesel. But the proposal is getting a cold response from some conservative Republicans, including outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) — who dismissed it as a "gimmick." And liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a biting Substack column, attacks Trump's proposal as a "really bad idea" that won't save Republicans from a "huge defeat" in the midterms.

"There's a strong whiff of desperation coming off the Republican Party these days, and it smells a lot like diesel fumes," Krugman argues in his column. "All indications are that the GOP is headed for a huge defeat in the midterms, and soaring prices of fuel — especially diesel — are a significant factor in the party's dim prospects. Now, Trump is considering an export ban of American diesel in order to temporarily reduce domestic diesel prices. As of this morning, it's unclear whether this will actually happen. But I think a diesel export ban is highly likely, and not just because it would be one of the few Hail Mary plays left for an epically corrupt president who must greatly fear the prospect of facing Democrats with subpoena power and criminal referrals."

Krugman adds, "Beyond that, a sudden ban on diesel exports would, in effect, be a broken promise — a de facto breach of multiple contracts."

Trump, Krugman notes, aggressively campaigned on fossil fuel production, and the export ban would be a "breach of contract" with the fossil fuel companies that supported him.

"Jared Bernstein has a really clear explanation of why such a ban would do little to help most Americans with affordability problems," Krugman explains. "Much of it comes down to regional differences. U.S. diesel exports come from the Gulf Coast, and cutting off those exports would indeed temporarily reduce diesel prices in and around Texas, while driving prices up in the rest of the world. But in this case, 'the rest of the world' includes much of the United States. Both the Northeast and the West Coast buy much of their diesel — and heating oil, which is a closely related commodity — from other countries. So a ban on U.S. exports, by driving up world prices, would actually make energy more expensive in some parts of the country."

The world, according to Krugman, is seeing a "a competition between two visions of the world's energy future." One promotes "electrification of cars and much else, powered by sun and wind," while the other — which Trump embraces — favors "continuing reliance on fossil fuels."

"Now, the world knows that we can't, in fact, be trusted as an energy supplier — that we may suddenly cut off fossil fuel exports whenever doing so might yield even temporary domestic political advantage," Krugman warns. "So, a diesel export ban would probably do little to assuage U.S. concerns about affordability. It would create uncertainty that deters business investment, in energy and other industries. And it would further weaken America's hand in its geopolitical rivalry with China over energy."

Krugman adds, "In short, a ban would be a really bad idea. Which is why it's probably going to happen."

In Pennsylvania, Democratic strategists are feeling increasingly bullish about incumbent Gov. Josh Shapiro's chances of winning a second term in the 2026 midterms. Recent polls are showing State Treasurer Stacy Garrity, Shapiro's GOP challenger, trailing the moderate Democratic governor by 25 percent (Franklin & Marshall), 26 percent (the Bravo Group) or 17 percent (New York Times/Siena College). And according to the Washington Post's Dan Merica, Pennsylvania Republicans "are starting to worry that" Garrity's sinking campaign "is directly affecting four of the nation's most competitive House races."

"Pennsylvania is the definition of a battleground state," Merica explains in the Post. "Voters there have correctly picked the presidential winner since 2008. Democrats hold a narrow 200,000 edge in voter registration. And Pennsylvania races are often decided by notably thin margins. But Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro's run for reelection against Republican State Treasurer Stacy Garrity has been an outright romp so far. Every poll has shown Shapiro with a large lead, some approaching 30 percentage points."

Merica continues, "The Democratic governor outraised Garrity by $11.5 million this summer, bringing in $13 million compared to Garrity's $1.8 million. And Shapiro's campaign, according to ad tracker AdImpact, has either spent or plans to spend nearly $28 million on ads in the state, dwarfing the $750,000 Garrity has either spent or reserved."

Pennsylvania Republicans, according to Merica, fear that Garrity's "struggling campaign could weigh down other Republicans on the ballot" — including Scott Perry, Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie and Brian Fitzpatrick, all of whom are competing in U.S. House of Representatives races.

"Garrity is atop the ballot for all these Republicans this year," Merica reports. "So a struggling Republican campaign will require down-ballot Republicans — including Perry, Bresnahan, Mackenzie and Fitzpatrick — to find enough crossover Shapiro voters to defy the downward pressure that Garrity is putting on their campaigns."

Sam Chen, a Pennsylvania-based GOP strategist, told the Post that while Garrity has "not run a good campaign" and is "going to lose" to Shapiro, President Donald Trump—not Garrity — is the biggest problem that "down-ballot" Republicans are facing in his state.

Chen warned, "What is going to hurt the down-ballot is the president, and specifically that he is not on the ballot. The president does this weird thing: When he is on the ballot, he has his own secret sauce ... When he is not on the ballot, it is like his baggage is on the ballot and his coattails are not."

Another GOP strategist, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told the Post, "Maybe Garrity's strategy is to run such an uninspiring campaign that the race is so much of an ass-kicking that Democrats don't feel the urgency to turn out on Election Day."

Although Shapiro shies away from the subject in interviews, he is being mentioned as a possible Democratic presidential candidate for 2028. And pundits are arguing that he needs a really big win in 2026 to show that he's capable of going the distance two years from now.

Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist J.J. Abbott told the Post, "Gov. Shapiro seems to understand the importance of showing the country that Democrats can both win and govern, which is a huge hurdle for improving the Democratic brand nationally ahead of 2028. There's no better state to do that in PA, the largest and most visible battleground state."

During Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, one of his most effective talking points was a promise to lower prices "on Day 1." But between President Trump's tariffs and his war against Iran, prices have increased since his return to the White House 20 months ago. And according to The New Republic's Virginia Heffernan, there is a word that is especially problematic for Trump at this point: diesel.

"Diesel prices have surged since Trump took office, and especially since February 28, when he started the war in Iran," Heffernan explains in a New Republic article. "When Joe Biden left at the start of 2025, diesel cost an average $3.63 per gallon. Just this month, that price blew past an average of $5.85 to a record high of more than $6.50. Disruptions to oil shipments, notably in the Strait of Hormuz, are pushing up crude oil prices, while reduced diesel supplies have left fuel markets tight all over the world. On Monday, Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst at Gulf Oil, was not reassuring. 'Monday morning price average for US diesel is $6.51/gal,' he posted to X."

Hefferman emphasizes that "skyrocketing diesel prices aim a missile squarely at the voters Trump can least afford to alienate" — including truck drivers who voted for him in 2024.

"Fully 90 percent of diesel truck buyers are men," Hefferman notes. "More than 84 percent identify as white. Most strikingly of all, truckers have a ram-tough party ID. According to one analysis, Republicans purchase eight heavy-duty trucks for every one purchased by a Democrat. And while Trump and his party have entirely failed to calm public fears about gas prices — 'I love the inflation!' Trump said in June — they've done far, far worse with diesel, where prices are spiking even more steeply."

Heffernan continues, "About one in five Trump voters now regrets their 2024 vote, according to one opinion-research organization. No wonder social media is filled with the diesel demographic, one-time Trump voters, raging at the president. 'Hey, Donald Trump, man, it just cost me $179 to fill up my diesel!' shouts a shirtless trucker at the top of his lungs. 'Six-dollar diesel is killing truck drivers!' shouts another."

Heffernan points to a recent video by ex-Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) — a former Trump ally who is now a scathing critic — as a prime example of MAGA frustration over diesel prices.

In the video, posted on X on September 15, Greene argued, "This is Trump's fault … It's $8.49 for diesel in California. It's $6.59 in Georgia. I don't care if it's Georgia or California. It's way too high."

Greene, according to Hefferman, is "an intuitive grandmaster of the diesel class" and "has an especially keen eye for their issues: data centers, the Iran war, the Epstein files, and now diesel fuel."

Heffernan writes, "These are the issues Trump is dying on … By alienating the diesel class, Trump may have bitten the final hand that feeds him. Diesel is certainly the word to watch in these final weeks before the polls. If nothing else, it's excellent shorthand for the rambunctious MAGA coalition that political scientists have been trying to understand for a decade."

Founded in 1989 during George H.W. Bush's presidency, the Christian fundamentalist legal group Liberty Counsel has a long history of representing white evangelicals in far-right causes. The Florida-based nonprofit has a new client: Foundations for Nations, a Wyoming church being asked to leave a Native American reservation. And Liberty Counsel is representing the church on a pro bono basis.

According to WyoFile reporter Maya Shimizu Harris, Foundations for Nations is "facing demands to leave the Wind River Indian Reservation after its pastor delivered a sermon urging Native congregants to renounce Northern Arapaho traditions has a formidable ally in its corner as tensions continue to simmer."

"Last month," Harris explains, "the Foundations for Nations church lodged a complaint with state and federal agencies against the Food Bank of Wyoming, alleging the organization unlawfully cut off its support on the basis of religious, political and racial discrimination. According to Foundations For Nations Pastor Sarah Lucas, Food Bank of Wyoming ended the partnership after her controversial sermon, telling her that it was in response to a call claiming her message was discriminatory, the Ranger reported."

Liberty Counsel, Harris reports, "filed the complaint on the church's behalf" and "is providing legal services to the church for free."

Richard Mast, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, is claiming that Foundations For Nations' situation is a free speech/freedom of religion battle.

Mast told WyoFile, "When a matter arises in their local area, we reach out to them, offer them an opportunity to participate, and we are frequently taken up on that. We appreciate our local counsel in Wyoming … People have reached out to us from Wyoming. We've come to their assistance, and at least one of those cases I recall was successful."

Over the years, Liberty Counsel has repeatedly clashed with liberal and progressive attorneys — many times, in cases involving gay rights and abortion.

"In addition to filing the discrimination complaint," Harris notes, "Liberty Counsel sent a letter to Northern Arapaho Business Council Chairman Keenan Groesbeck in July after the council had adopted a resolution stating that outside organizations should consult with the council before initiating or expanding recurring organized activities on lands governed by the Northern Arapaho Tribe. While stating that the church believes it's in compliance with the resolution, the letter asserted that the church 'requires no authorization' from the Northern Arapaho Business Council 'to conduct religious activities on its own private fee simple property,' and that the church 'will not be leaving its property.'"

Harris continues, "Following Lucas' sermon, the Northern Arapaho Business Council told church officials to leave the reservation, and some called on the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone tribes to use the 'bad men' clause in their treaties with the U.S. government to oust the church from the reservation. But in an August 31 resolution, the Northern Arapaho Business Council stated that it doesn’t regulate activities on the church’s private property, and that it hadn't designated the church or any person as 'bad men.'"

After President Donald Trump chose former Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) to replace the fired Kristi Noem as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Alan Armstrong to temporarily fill the U.S. Senate seat. But Oklahoma voters will decide who fills the seat for a full term. In the meantime, according to Washington Sun reporter Reese Gorman, an "internal fight" among Oklahoma Republicans is "boiling over" as they "vie to fill the last two months of former Sen. Markwayne Mullin's term."

"The dispute is over when Sen. Alan Armstrong's temporary term ends and the next Oklahoma senator — likely Rep. Kevin Hern — would be sworn in," Gorman reports in the Washington Sun. "Hern wants to be sworn into the Senate in November following the election, while Armstrong wants to stay on through January."

In the general election, Hern is up against Democratic nominee N'Kiyla Jasmine Thomas.

Oklahoma law, Gorman notes, states, "The candidate elected to the office at the regularly scheduled election shall be deemed to also have been elected to fill the vacancy and shall be eligible to assume the office upon the official certification of the election by the State Election Board."

"According to multiple sources familiar with the matter," Gorman reports, "Hern's team believes the law would allow Hern — if he wins the election — to be sworn into the Senate in November, as Oklahoma must certify the election within seven days of it being completed. However, Armstrong's team believes the law is less clear and that he was appointed to serve out the remainder of now- Secretary of Homeland Security Mullin's term, which ends in early January. Armstrong wants to stay on at least until legislation on permitting reform gets done, sources tell The Washington Sun. There's a chance that happens in the lame-duck session."

Gorman adds, "All this has caused a rift between the two members, sources say."

Hern, according to Gorman, is being represented by Glenn Coffee — a well-known attorney in Oklahoma — while Stitt is "pushing for" Armstrong "to remain in office until January."

"On September 11," Gorman reports, "an attorney representing Armstrong sent a letter, which The Sun obtained, to Stitt asking that he request the attorney general's opinion on the matter. In the letter, the lawyer says, 'The upcoming Senate election is not intended to determine who will succeed to the few remaining weeks' of the term. Armstrong's attorney said that 'Senator Armstrong seeks an opinion addressing whether his appointment continues until the 120th Congress convenes on January 3, 2027, or terminates immediately upon certification and qualification of a new Senator elected at the upcoming election.'"

Gorman continues, "Multiple sources told The Sun that Stitt has not yet requested the attorney general's opinion on the matter. However, on Tuesday, State Senate Pro Tempore Lonnie Paxton requested an opinion from State Attorney General Gentner Drummond on when the next senator would get sworn in."

Although conservative Anthony Scaramucci briefly served in the first Trump administration, he is very much in the Never Trump camp now and endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in 2024. Scaramucci is highly critical of Donald Trump's second presidency, and during a Wednesday morning conversation with MS NOW's Stephanie Ruhle, he predicted that Trump will issue pardons for himself and members of his family if more Republicans turn against him in the months ahead.

GOP senators have often been deferential to Trump since his return to the White House, voting to confirm many of his most controversial nominees. But Scaramucci, during his MS NOW appearance, predicted that more Republicans will come out against Trump as his popularity continues to plummet.

Ruhle told Scaramucci, "Another break from Trump: Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah, he is now calling for the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the business dealings and relationships of presidential family members, including a report that a Russian oligarch helped pay for the wedding after-party of Don Jr. You know Don Jr. and the Trump family very well; you and I have talked about this over the course of the last two years and the extraordinary money they have made — sort of, with reckless abandon, like, come at me, bro, you can't take me down. And now, you've got a Republican in Utah saying, hold on a minute."

Scaramucci predicted that more Republicans will rebel against the Trump family's "corruption."

The Never Trump conservative told Ruhle, "It's not a glass ceiling, Stephanie — it's a concrete ceiling for a lot of people when they look at that sort of corruption. But I think the most interesting thing you said is that Republicans want to look into this. And so, I think that's where the fissure is, and that's where the crack is. And I think a lot of Republicans, in the next six weeks, are going to break from the president due to his unpopularity. Moreover, if they end up losing the Senate, I make a prediction, here on your show: The president will start pardoning his family members."

Scaramucci continued, "He may even pardon himself before the term is over. And like it or not, he'll point to the Hunter Biden pardon and say: well, I'm pardoning all my family members. And he'll do the whataboutism that politicians do about these perimeters of corruption .... But I think it's a bad sign for the president that the Republicans are finally coming and they're finally cracking on this issue."

Republican strategists are hoping that if Democrats are able to flip any GOP-held U.S. Senate seats in the 2026 midterms, they will be able to offset the losses by doing some flipping of their own. One of the states they're looking at is Minnesota, where Republican Michele Tafoya is up against the Democratic nominee, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. But Tafoya now finds herself in a controversy over past criticism of Minnesota she is now trying to distance herself from.

Andrew Kaczynski of CNN's KFile notes that during a recent radio interview in her state, Tafoya was asked about past criticism of Minnesota. The U.S. Senate hopeful responded, "If I were embarrassed to be from Minnesota, would I be running for the United States Senate to represent Minnesota? I have never said that."

But according to Kaczynski, KFile uncovered a "since-deleted tweet" from March 2023 in which Tafoya — a former television sports reporter — contradicts her recent claim.

In the X post, Tafoya wrote, "I'm embarrassed to say I live in Minnesota. This state has gone so far left it's amazing any of the snow still sticks."

"When another user told her she could leave," Kaczynski explains in his KFile report, "Tafoya replied, 'That's the plan! Have a great day!' She added that she was considering moving to Tennessee. A day after that, asked by another user 'promise?' she wrote, 'Yes. I want to make you and your 35 followers happy.' The deleted exchange was part of a broader pattern of Tafoya criticizing the state she is now running to represent."

Kaczynski continues, "A CNN KFile review found that, in the years before launching her Senate campaign, in tweets and on her podcast, Tafoya repeatedly said she planned to leave Minnesota. At times, she described Minnesota in sharply negative terms because of its politics, while often identifying herself as a part-time Floridian and praising that state as a model of conservative governance. In just the past three years, Tafoya told followers, at least four separate times, that she planned to leave the state."

Minnesota presently has two Democratic U.S. senators: Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, who isn't seeking reelection. Tafoya and Flanagan are competing for the seat Smith will be vacating in January 2027.

Polls released in September are showing a close race. A co/efficient poll found Flanagan ahead by only 1 percent, while a Quantus Insights poll showed her with a 4 percent lead. However, a KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found Tafoya and Flanagan in a dead heat.

Economists are warning that rising fuel costs resulting from President Donald Trump's war against Iran will affect everything from grocery prices to public transportation. And according to contractors in Rutherford County, Tennessee, higher diesel prices may bring school busses to a halt.

Chris Nalls of WTVC NewsChannel 9 in Chattanooga reports that "the school system" in Rutherford County "says families should not expect a change in bus service right now." But school bus contractors in Rutherford County, according to the Tennessee Holler and Nashville's WSMV, are warning that if diesel prices keep rising, they may not be able to afford to keep the busses running.

WSMV reports, "All of us are feeling the pinch at the top. But school bus contractors here in Rutherford County who rely on diesel to fill their busses up say if they don't get help from the school board, they're going to be left with no choice but to park for good."

Sandra Davis, a school bus contractor in Rutherford County, told WSMV, "You can't put fuel in it, you can't run … We've gotta do what we do to put diesel in the bus to get kids to school."

Davis told WSMV that she and her husband, who she runs the contracting company with, are struggling badly because of diesel prices.

The Tennessee Holler, in a post on X, wrote, "RUTHERFORD COUNTY: 'You can’t put fuel in it, you can't run.' @rucoschools school bus contractors say they may have to stop running because diesel costs too much — Because of Trump's pointless war."

According to WTVC NewsChannel 9 reporter Nalls, soaring diesel prices "could cost Rutherford County Schools an additional $250,000 to $300,000, according to the school system."

"Rutherford County Schools relies largely on individual bus owners to transport students," Nalls explains. "Those drivers are paid through an agreement that adjusts their pay when fuel prices rise above a set level. For diesel, that starting point is $4 a gallon. School officials say diesel is now averaging around $6 a gallon. 'When diesel goes above that amount, drivers receive more money to help cover the cost of getting students to and from school,' the school system said."

James Evans of Rutherford County Schools told WTVC, "Our budget department tells us that this may cost us $250,000 to $300,000, just depending on how long the fuel prices stay high like this. It won't affect bus service. We'll continue to offer bus service, but it will affect how much it costs us."

Trump carried Tennessee in three presidential elections in a row.

With the 2026 midterms less one and one-half months away, a chaotic redistricting battle rages on in deep red Missouri. And MAGA Republicans are continuing to fight a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the state's congressional map.

Politico's Josh Gerstein, early Wednesday morning on X, reported, "BREAKING: Missouri redistricting fight hits [Supreme Court] for 3rd time. Opponents of plan likely to shift 1 House seat to GOP say appeals court basically defied earlier SCOTUS ruling. Kavanaugh sets short fuse, orders response by 2PM Wednesday."

CNN's Aaron Blake, responding to Gerstein's tweet, posted, "There are less than six weeks until the election, and we still don't know which districts Missouri is using."

Gerstein, in Politico, explains, "Opponents of a GOP-friendly gerrymander in Missouri are again asking the Supreme Court to put the plan to rest with a definitive ruling. It's the third time the issue has reached the High Court in the past few weeks. Both of the prior trips resulted in rulings against the state's new, GOP-friendly House map, but a federal appeals court panel rekindled the fight Monday when it ordered the state to use the new map in November."

Gerstein continues, "The new emergency appeal from redistricting opponents asks Justice Brett Kavanaugh to block this week's unusual decision from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which came despite a unanimous ruling from Missouri's top court that the election should proceed under an existing map that gives Republicans a 7-2 advantage over Democrats in the state's House delegation. Kavanaugh put the latest request on a short fuse. He ordered state officials and Republican candidates seeking to stick with the new map to respond by 2 p.m. Wednesday."

Gerstein notes that although "the new pro-GOP map was used for primary elections" in August, the Missouri Supreme Court "ruled those lines never went into effect because a successful petition drive meant the new map required approval from the state's voters in a referendum prior to being adopted."

"The U.S. Supreme Court's first snub of the Republican-led effort came on September 8, when Kavanaugh turned down an emergency appeal by state officials seeking to overturn the Missouri Supreme Court's decision," Gerstein notes. "However, within minutes of Kavanaugh's order, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark, a Trump appointee, granted a restraining order two GOP candidates sought against using the older lines for the general election. A challenge to Clark's order eventually reached the full Supreme Court, which put it on hold two days later."

Gerstein adds, "While no justice noted any dissent from the ruling, the justices also offered no explanation for it, which the 8th Circuit appears to have interpreted as leaving them free rein on the issue."

Although the U.S. Senate's GOP majority has confirmed many of President Donald Trump's nominees — even when Senate Democrats were united against them — Trump is frustrated over a practice that allows Democrats to block some of his picks for the federal judiciary. And according to Politico reporters Jordain Carney and Chris Marquette, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) may be "in a position to do something about it."

"Utah Sen. Mike Lee is poised to chair the Judiciary Committee should Republicans manage to keep control of the Senate in the midterms," Carney and Marquette explain in Politico. "That would give the MAGA stalwart the power to decide the fate of the 'blue slip,' which lets senators block any home-state district court judge, federal marshal or U.S. attorney nomination they oppose."

But according to the Politico reporters, taking that approach "risks pitting Lee against his Senate GOP colleagues, many of whom support the status quo."

Lee, Carney and Marquette report, doesn't "expect to eliminate blue slips" altogether but "left the door open to changing how the tradition is enforced."

The Utah senator told Politico, "There is no appetite to just get rid of them. The blue slip itself has had a lot of evolution, and it's almost never static — though it doesn’t mean that everything about the blue slip procedure will always be the same."

Meanwhile, Trump himself, according to Carney and Marquette, "has a simpler view of the matter — demanding Senate Republicans completely ditch the blue slip, which he views as an intolerable fetter on his power to install federal judges." And that view puts him at odds with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and others.

"Current Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has repeatedly fended off Trump's calls to end the practice, explaining that most of his fellow senators have no interest in giving up leverage in who gets home-state appointments," Carney and Marquette note. "Asked how the White House would want Lee to handle blue slips, a spokesperson pointed back to several of the president's comments over the past year, including an October 2025 Truth Social post where he called it an 'old and ridiculous custom.' Trump targeted Grassley directly last December, saying that it was 'shocking' that he would allow 'this scam to continue.'"

Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), interviewed by Politico, said of Lee, "I think, you know, he's a traditionalist, and I think he'll honor the blue slip … Senators have few prerogatives and tools, and that's one of them."

President Donald Trump escalated his war against the mainstream media with a White House ban against CNN, MS NOW and Politico, resulting in a major civil lawsuit from those media outlets. The Trump-era U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Politico's Kyle Cheney reports, defended the ban in a Tuesday night, September 22 filing. But attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. is attacking the Trump DOJ's arguments as "exceptionally weak."

Cheney, in a Wednesday morning thread on X, explains, "NEW: DOJ is justifying President Trump's ban on media orgs by citing stories about sensitive topics like depleted U.S. munitions, the war in Iran, Trump's ballroom security features and ... bad 'vibes' at the GOP midterm convention."

Cheney and colleague Josh Gerstein, in Politico, report, "In a court filing Tuesday night, the Justice Department defended Trump's decision to ban Politico, CNN and MS NOW from the White House, describing it as a move rooted in the outlets' publication of sensitive information … The filing, a response to an emergency lawsuit brought by the three news organizations demanding immediate restoration of their West Wing access, cited several stories by each outlet, including accounts about the state of the war with Iran, depleted U.S. munition stockpiles and details of a leak probe related to unflattering stories about FBI Director Kash Patel. The filing criticizes Politico for publishing a handout that the Secret Service provided to Senate Republicans to justify the construction of the president's new White House ballroom."

The Politico reporters continue, "The Justice Department brief also attached letters the administration purportedly sent to each outlet earlier Tuesday, citing those stories as the basis for Trump's decision to revoke their White House access, giving them until Friday to contest it. However, the letters — which are unsigned and do not appear on official letterhead — do not claim that any of the cited stories contained classified information. In addition, some of the examples don't appear to have any national security nexus at all. The letter addressed to Politico complains about a report that described bad 'vibes' at the recent GOP midterm convention in Texas."

But according to attorney Boutrous, who is representing the three media outlets in their lawsuit, the Trump DOJ's arguments don't pass the smell test.

Boutrous told Politico, "This is an exceptionally weak response. We look forward to the hearing."

The hearing that Boutrous referenced is set for 3:30 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday, with U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, presiding.

"Kelly presided over a similar legal fight in 2018 triggered by the Trump White House's revocation of CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta's credentials following a dispute about his actions at a press conference," Cheney and Gerstein note. "The judge issued a quick ruling in Acosta's favor, ordering the White House to return his hard pass."

Attorney Andrew Weissman, known for his work as FBI general counsel under former President Barack Obama and a consultant for the late special counsel Robert Mueller during the Russian investigation in 2017, is the target of a defamation lawsuit from a former Trump administration official. But according to Law & Crime reporter Matt Naham, the lawsuit is running into major obstacles.

The former Trump official is attorney Stefan C. Passantino, who served in the Office of White House Counsel during the first Trump administration and later represented conservative Cassidy Hutchinson during an investigation of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol Building. The lawsuit, Naham reports, alleges that Weissmann defamed Passantino when he said — without mentioning him by name — that he "coached" Hutchinson (a former aide to ex-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows) to "lie" to Congress during her testimony.

But on Monday, September 21, the lawsuit hit suffered a major rebuke when U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan (an appointee of former President Joe Biden) strongly disagreed with Passantino's claims.

AliKhan, in a ruling, wrote, "To resolve the relevant question, the court looks to the full transcript of the September 14 deposition. The court concludes that Mr. Passantino's claims about the message of the transcript are not only legally conclusory, but also incorrect. The transcript, far from contradicting Mr. Weissmann's statement, supports it."

The judge also wrote, "Ms. Hutchinson's statements indicate that Mr. Passantino repeatedly prompted Ms. Hutchinson to lie. For example, Mr. Passantino's advice included telling Ms. Hutchinson that 'Your go-to, Cass,' is 'I don't recall,' even when she asked about answering 'certain questions that [she] would recall.' When Ms. Hutchinson told Mr. Passantino, 'I'm f[—–]. I just lied.' Mr. Passantino purportedly responded, 'You didn't lie … They don't know what you know, Cassidy. They don't know that you can recall some of these things. So you saying 'I don't recall' is an entirely acceptable response to this … In other words, the transcript reflects that even as Mr. Passantino nominally instructed Ms. Hutchinson not to lie, he repeatedly urged her to say 'I don't recall' based on the unverifiability of that response — not based on its truth."

AliKhan continued, "He encouraged her to say 'I don't recall' whenever the Committee would not know the difference, even when Ms. Hutchinson indicated to him that she did in fact recall relevant information."

Naham notes that Passantino "represented Hutchinson for three January 6 Committee depositions, advising her that 'I don't recall' was an 'entirely acceptable' response if she didn't '100 percent recall something' down to the last detail."

"Before Hutchinson's fourth and fifth depositions, however, she fired Passantino," according to Naham. "And though she herself said that Passantino 'never told me to lie,' the judge saw something else in the transcript."

Naham points out that Passantino's lawsuit "alleged that Weissmann's post amounted to an 'insidious lie' and 'smear' that damaged his reputation and harmed him financially."

But AliKhan disagreed, noting the "objective reasonableness" of Weissmann's statement.

Where Passantino goes from here, according to Naham, remains to be seen.

"Law & Crime sought comment from one of Passantino's lawyers and asked whether an appeal will follow," according to Naham.

President Donald Trump got a major pushback from the United States' North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies when he threatened Greenland with annexation. In a biting editorial, the conservative National Review argues that Trump's Greenland push was a "diplomatic" debacle — from hurting the United States' "reputation" to undermining key U.S. alliances.

The Review, in its editorial, emphasizes that while Greenland is important to the U.S., Trump handled things badly at a considerable "cost."

"To be clear," the conservative Review says, "Trump was right about one big thing: that Greenland merited much more attention than it had been getting. The Arctic may not have warmed up by as much and as quickly as Al Gore and others claimed it would, but it has done so by enough to render it much more accessible than before. As a result, it is becoming a zone of geopolitical competition for its resources and, more simply, because of location, location, location. For obvious geographical reasons, that increases the already-considerable importance of Greenland to this country."

The Review editorial continues, "The island is a potential back door through U.S. defenses and a key North Atlantic vantage point. Moreover, in an era of supply-chain anxiety, it has potentially valuable mineral resources, including rare earths."

But Trump, the Review laments, made things "painful" in ways they didn't have to be.

"Asking politely to upgrade the existing agreement might well have delivered just that — and done so without creating all the geopolitical self-harm," the Review explains. "Unfortunately, Trump went about defending the U.S. strategic interest in a different way, and that was the wrong way. The core of the problem has been that, despite his own nationalist instincts, the president is oblivious when it comes to the national sensitivities of others. Originally, he had imagined that Greenland could simply be bought: essentially, it would be 'a large real estate deal.' This was not, unsurprisingly, how the Danes and Greenlanders saw it. The president's adding the threat of stick (tariffs and hints of worse) to the promise of carrot caused a major rift within NATO and did damage to our reputation as a reliable ally."

According to the Review, "stressing the fact that Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty will be left intact" is in the United States' best interests.

"If and when an agreement is concluded," the Review writers argue, "the best way to maximize its benefits to the U.S. will be to repair the diplomatic damage that this episode has caused by rebuilding a deeper relationship with Denmark and Greenland."

Behind closed doors, many GOP insiders are worried that the 2026 midterms will bring a blue wave even larger than the one in 2016 — which found Democrats flipping more than 40 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. But according to Never Trump conservative Miles Taylor, President Donald Trump and his aides are "gloating" and feeling "emboldened" — and won't be deterred by a backlash, whether it comes from a blue wave or major lawsuits.

Taylor was serving as chief of staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when Democrats flipped the House in 2018 — an event that, according to Taylor, didn't make Trump any less audacious. And in 2026, the former Trump administration official warns, the president and his aides aren't going to be discouraged by either lawsuits or possible Democratic gains in the midterms.

"Anyone hoping the losses (in 2018) would humble him was sorely mistaken," Taylor recalls. "Donald Trump was on the attack. He fired his attorney general, spoke openly about ejecting his chief of staff and set his sights on Cabinet members who challenged his erraticism and frequent impulses toward illegality. He didn't want anyone around to say 'no' to whatever his warped conscience cooked up next. On the same day, Trump blew up at CNN's Jim Acosta during a post-election press conference for asking uncomfortable questions about the Russia investigation and the president's immigration policies."

Taylor continues, "Afterwards, Trump decided he would simply throw him out of the White House, breaking with decades of norms that credentialed members of the press are given access to cover the American presidency. That night, I was at dinner in the restaurant of the Trump Hotel with a member of the president's Cabinet and senior national security officials. A few tables away sat the White House communications chief with a group of aides. They were openly gloating and celebrating, before the story had even hit the news. They'd had the Secret Service stop Acosta and take away his pass. If the press didn't report on Trump the way Trump wanted, he'd censor them."

Taylor notes that eight years later, Trump is banning three news organizations from the White House: CNN, MS NOW and Politico — resulting in a major lawsuit. But that lawsuit, according to Taylor, won't discourage Trump in 2026 any more than he was discouraged in 2018.

"He didn't learn the lesson his critics thought he would after 2018's Acosta episode," Taylor emphasizes. "The reporter sued, the courts sided with him, and he got his White House pass back within days. Even Fox News backed its rival's case. But Trump was unfazed. The lesson he took from losing wasn't that there was a red line he should never cross but that crossing it had cost him nothing. He faced no real consequences. The media kept covering him, just as always."

Taylor continues, "Emboldened, the president has referred to his latest action as an 'assault on the FAKE NEWS' and insisted: 'I don't have to let them into the people's house.' This isn't a man who’s worried about a court ruling over freedom of speech. He's wielding the weapon of intimidation to get anticipatory obedience — to send a warning signal to everyone still covering the U.S. government, domestically or internationally."

A racist social post by Bo French, GOP nominee for Texas railroad commissioner, set off an intense debate among Republicans — with veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove saying he would vote for the Democratic nominee and President Donald Trump attacking Rove as a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). And according to Democratic insider Christopher Hale, a Catholic bishop is now the target of MAGA rage for calling French out.

After Texas won a college football game, French posted a photo of University of Texas, Austin fans celebrating the victory — and French was offended that they were Indian-America. French, in a September 13 post on X, wrote, "I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn't believe it. The problem is obviously now far worse than anyone imagined."

Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth vehemently condemned French's post, tweeting, "This is racist and sinful rhetoric that seeks to harm and to divide. It is disturbing that it comes from a candidate for public office. An apology is called for."

Olson's post drew a scathing response from MAGA Republicans and French defenders.

MAGA conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec is among French's defenders, telling Olson, "Every nation in the world is allowed to determine appropriate levels of immigration, Bishop Christ never commanded that all nations of the world accept endless amounts of foreign immigration. In fact, elected officials are allowed to publicly discuss these issues in a republic."

Hale notes, "Under Olson's post, the replies called him an apostate who should 'go join Prevost in Rome and pray to Pachamama,' a shepherd who cares 'more for the wolves than for his own sheep.' One account informed him that 'Racism is not sin.' That last line is the whole fight, and Olson knows it. He gave an interview to Kevin Clarke of America magazine, published Friday, and repeated the charge. French's refusal to apologize, and his decision to raise money off the uproar, left the bishop 'astounded and disturbed.' The photo, he said, was 'a point of political exploitation,' and its logic was plain: 'there's no knowing if those young people are citizens or not. All that is known is that they are of a different complexion.'"

Hale adds, "These were, in his reading, 'not even dog whistle words.' The students in it 'were being disqualified from participation in American society — even in something like a football game, as important as that is in Texas — by the color of their skin.'"

Hale points out that some Texas Republicans aren't defending French's racist post but are still supporting his campaign.

"A Catholic bishop in Fort Worth said more in three sentences than the governor of Texas has managed in a week," Hale argues. "He was called an apostate for it, and he answered by giving an interview in which he repeated himself, slowly, for the record.

That is what a shepherd looks like when the wolves are inside the fence. The Republican Party of Texas may yet find its voice before November. The Church in Texas did not wait."

Economists are warning that soaring diesel prices will make a wide variety of products more expensive. In response, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), according to The Hill's Alexander Bolton, is on board with a proposal to "embargo the export of diesel to increase supply and lower prices at home." But that proposal, Bolton reports, is setting off an intense "clash" among Senate Republicans.

"Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is open to the idea," Bolton explains in The Hill, "but oil-state Republicans have slammed the proposal as a 'gimmick.' The soaring cost of diesel is putting political pressure on Republicans in farm states such as Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, where Democrats now have a chance to win Senate seats that weren't viewed as competitive a year ago."

Bolton adds, "The double whammy of President Trump's global trade war, which has impacted commodities such as pork and soybeans, and the mounting cost of fuel and fertilizer has put farmers in a foul mood, and some Senate Republicans fear an angry backlash in key red states."

In a September 19 post on X, Grassley wrote, "W diesel $6.57 in Iowa why doesn't Pres Trump put an embargo on diesel exports like presidents in the 70s put embargoes on ag products bc food prices were inflated. High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS INCOME."

Thune argued, "The export ban, honestly, makes probably more sense to me. I think that suspending the (gas) tax is a short-term thing and then you create holes in the Highway Trust Fund."

But Senate Republicans have a variety of views on the proposal.

Outgoing Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) complained, "It's a gimmick." And Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is skeptical, telling The Hill, "We actually produce more than we consume here, produce more diesel in this country than we consume. We're talking about global supply, so I worry that we do something in the short-term … that doesn't really move the needle."

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) is expressing skepticism as well.

Rounds told The Hill, "I'd want to see how they would do it. The bigger problem we've got right now is, as I understand it, in California, we've already lost two more refineries because of California's strict environmental rules. They've shut down two more refineries. I would like to get those back up and operational again."

Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, believes that the proposal would make diesel prices higher, not lower.

On X, Sommers tweeted, "Americans are hurting from rising diesel prices, and policymakers are understandably searching for answers. But restricting U.S. diesel exports would make the problem worse, not better — for consumers, farmers and the broader U.S. economy."

According to many polls, Democratic candidates are performing surprisingly well in states that Donald Trump won in 2024 — including Texas, Iowa, Kansas, Alaska and Ohio. And GOP strategists, Politico reports, are taking this Democratic surge seriously.

In Politico, Meredith Lee Hill, Erin Doherty, Jessica Piper and Andrew Howard explain, "Republicans are playing defense deep in their own territory as voter anger over price hikes puts more House and Senate seats in play in the midterms. New rounds of big spending, visits from Trump administration officials and private conversations among top GOP officials overseeing the battle for control of Congress reveal a party rushing to shore up red seats and states President Donald Trump won handily in 2024."

The Politico reporters continue, "In the House, the fight has expanded far outside the few-dozen seats considered the most competitive as Republicans start to unleash their massive war chest: Since August 1, more than $110 million in ad bookings have gone toward Republican-held districts so red that Trump won them by double digits. In the Senate, Republicans are racing to shore up Ohio GOP Sen. Jon Husted as the Midwest struggles under the weight of Trump's tariffs and high diesel prices. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are both expected to travel to the state before the midterms to boost Husted, according to four people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss not-yet-public plans."

GOP strategists, according to Hill, Doherty, Piper and Howard, have "quietly begun deprioritizing Georgia and even North Carolina, which a growing number of Republicans are privately bracing for Democrats to flip." And the Republican insiders interviewed by Politico made it clear that they aren't taking Democratic gains in red states lightly.

A senior Republican official, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Politico, "We need to stop the contagion." And a GOP pollster, also quoted anonymously, told the publication that for Democrats, "The map is hilariously big right now."

But GOP strategist Mark Bednarm notes that Republicans still have an "advantage" when it comes to fundraising.

Bednar told Politico, "The voter enthusiasm (for Republican voters) is not where it needs to be, but that's where a money advantage can make a really big impact."

GOP insiders, according to Hill, Doherty, Piper and Howard, are "still bullish about Maine, Michigan and New Hampshire" but are "not as optimistic about North Carolina" and are "concerned about Alaska and Texas."

A GOP strategist told Politico, "As more races come online, it very clearly is a defensive map for Republicans across the country."

During Joe Biden's four years in the White House, Donald Trump and MAGA allies relentlessly mocked Biden for his age. But now, 20 months into Trump's second presidency, it is Trump who is being mocked for his age and mental fitness. And according to Daily Beast reporter Leigh Kimmins, White House insiders are privately worried about Trump showing his age and signs of deterioration — both physically and politically.

"President Donald Trump is rapidly turning into a cranky old man, according to White House insiders," Kimmins explains in the Daily Beast. "Issues are mounting for the 80-year-old. His handpicked Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, raised the benchmark interest rate, despite Trump's demands for rates of 1 percent or lower, while the Supreme Court blocked the president's attempt to impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots, and a federal judge again barred the Kennedy Center from putting his name on the building."

Kimmins adds, "Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. María Elvira Salazar turned on him and warned that Trump's immigration enforcement has gone 'too far,' saying Hispanic voters who helped elect him 'feel betrayed,' while gasoline has climbed to about $4.48 a gallon — roughly $1.24 higher than a year ago, and diesel has hit a record high amid the energy squeeze."

Worries about Trump's age among White House insiders, Kimmins notes, are coming "as the midterms are less than 43 days away."

"Some advisers say Trump can still be in a good mood, according to Axios," Kimmins reports. "However, others describe a tendency to grow irate quickly. They also say that Trump is beginning to look and act like an octogenarian. In July, Trump's aides described him as even more 'erratic' than usual, according to The New York Times. His struggle to find a 'face-saving' exit from the Iran conflict has reportedly left him increasingly frustrated and, in turn, more prone to abruptly switching up his positions."

Kimmins continues, "In August, aides admitted that their boss had little interest in traveling across the country to prop up weak GOP candidates for the midterms, according to CNN. In early September, Trump hosted an unprecedented midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, expecting candidates to come to him. At the end of the last month, White House insiders told The Wall Street Journal that Trump is more interested in his own legacy than in improving the economy or ending his war with Iran … Aides say Trump fears his presidency will be remembered similarly to 'past occupants of the White House he views as weak, such as Jimmy Carter.'"

On Monday, September 14, President Donald Trump suffered a major disappointment when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his push to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. Many Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), were quick to applaud the ruling. But according to Claire Finkelstein, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, the September 14 decision in USPS v. California left important questions unanswered. And the battle over voting rights, she emphasizes in an op-ed for The Guardian, will continue.

"Last week's Supreme Court decision upholding the district court's restraining order on USPS' (the United States' Postal Service) mail-in ballot restrictions is being hailed as a victory for electoral integrity by politicians, political commentators and voting rights advocates alike," Finkelstein writes in The Guardian. "The senator Chuck Schumer, for example, called the decision 'one of the most important cases to protect voting rights before the Supreme Court.' But the unsigned, three-sentence opinion, with only a brief concurrence and a lengthy dissent, is no such thing. The Court based its brief opinion entirely on the timing of the rollout of the new rules, which became effective on 21 August, just weeks away from the midterm elections and only days before several states were scheduled to begin mailing out their ballots."

Finkelstein continues, "California's submission to the Court, joined by 22 states and the District of Columbia, asking the Court to leave the injunction against the rule change in place, made clear that compliance with the rules in advance of the midterms would not only be difficult — it would be impossible without disenfranchising thousands of voters. And that, of course, is the point."

According to Finkelstein, the "court fight" over voting "does not address whether USPS has a right to burden mail-in voting to this degree in the first place." And the Penn law professor notes that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito "increasingly divide up the landscape as a struggle between presidential power on the one hand versus anything that might infringe on that power on the other."

Finkelstein writes, "Whether the issue is the president's right to regulate the mail; his right to remove heads of agencies, including supposedly independent agencies; his right to claim executive privilege over communications with advisers; or even his right to commit crimes with impunity through the vehicle of his official duties, Alito and Thomas, joined frequently by other members of the Court's conservative majority, have increasingly allowed their jurisprudence to be held prisoner by the drive to expand presidential authority … Defenders of voting rights must not relax. While USPS v. California is a temporary political setback for the president and his fellow Republicans, it is not yet a home run for democracy."

U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) — who is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Joni Ernst — has a history of voting with President Donald Trump more often than not, including signing off on his Big, Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. But Hinson, with the 2026 midterms roughly one and a half months away, is trying to show some independence from Trump. And now, the conservative congresswoman is calling an "immediate" end to Trump's war with Iran.

In a Monday morning post on X, Hinson wrote, "Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn't have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran. We need to use every option at our disposal to provide some relief from high prices. That includes suspending the gas tax, pausing diesel exports, unleashing E-15 everywhere we can, reinstating the $1/gallon biodiesel tax credit, and creating a diesel relief program to help our farmers and truckers being crushed by the high costs. While doing this, we should also ensure our highway trust fund is replenished, so that Iowans don't suffer from crumbling roads and bridges while relief comes our way now."

Hinson continued, "These actions to lower costs are needed ASAP, and the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end. I am working every day to deliver bipartisan results for Iowans and I will work with anyone who is ready to tackle this challenge immediately."

More than six and a half months ago, in late February, Trump launched a war against Iran. Trump promised a quick, brief military operation, but the conflict is showing no signs of wrapping up. And Trump's war is leading to higher fuel prices at a time when inflation is a major source of frustration for voters.

Although Trump won Iowa in 2016, 2020 and 2024, Democratic strategists believe they have a shot at flipping the U.S. Senate seat Ernst presently holds and are feeling optimistic about their nominee Josh Turek.

In order to regain control of the U.S. Senate, Democrats will need to flip at least four GOP-held seats while holding all of the seats they are defending. And they believe that Iowa's U.S. Senate race is in play for them. An Emerson College/Nexstar Media poll released earlier this month showed Hinson with a 5 percent lead over Turek, but in a recent YouGov poll, Turek had a 2 percent lead over Hinson.