Bank

On Friday, a family member of President Donald Trump revealed the president is “trapped” in a world of sad lies cultivated by his broken father, and aggravated by a legion of flacks who are willing to feed his delusions.

“How many times have we watched the Congressional hearing in which somebody in Donald's orbit has been asked a direct question only to watch them look down at their notes for the person or institution they're supposed to blame in order to deflect, instead of answering the question?” Trump asked on her Friday podcast. “The pattern is unmistakable. When confronted with an uncomfortable question Donald or somebody in his orbit always redirects the accusation outward.”

Sometimes she said they combine projection with deflection and attack the person who asked the question. Trump himself likes to tell female reporters they don’t smile enough, or he calls her “piggy.” She said he also likes to call people he doesn’t like “stupid, nasty, crooked or corrupt.” All of this, she said amounts to an effort to shift attention away from the question Trump hates to answer and the fact that he fails to answer it.

“Projection is a very basic and quite common defense mechanism in which a person attributes thoughts, feelings, impulses and characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to somebody else,” said Mary Trump, adding that this isn't exactly hypocrisy because projection is “unconscious” much of the time.

“When Donald says that somebody is ‘stupid’ or ‘low IQ’ or ‘corrupt’ or ‘criminal’ or ‘traitorous,’ he's literally talking about himself,” said Trump’s niece, who said she recognized the behavior in her uncle early in life.

“He just isn't aware of it because acknowledging those shortcomings about himself is unthinkable to him. Acknowledging those shortcomings would be to admit that he is nothing he claims to be, which is smart, strong, sophisticated, successful. The list goes on. Projection is a way of making one's problem,” she said, “… especially if the thing about themselves as humiliating.

Mary Trump said her uncle was trained early by his father, Fred, to believe vulnerability, dependence and failure were dangerous. So, what Donald Trump learned to deny those feelings and bury those characteristics.

This is a pity, she said — because these characteristics are particularly prominent in her broken, ailing uncle.

“Donald doesn't have to convince the entire country of his delusional framework because the truth of the matter is it's really just himself he's trying to convince,” she said, adding that unfortunately “there's a significant minority of people who are willing to go along with his delusional framework … because he is also expert at convincing very weak people that they’re responsible for assuaging his pain and supporting him, no matter what.”

“Even if it's to the detriment of their country and, quite frankly, their own detriment,” she concluded.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Before Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell and ended up in the hospital for 56 days this year before he went home for another few weeks to recover. Before the tumble, however, there were signs that led many to question whether McConnell was okay. Now there's another lawmaker prompting concerns.

The Bulwark reported that Iowans are wondering what would happen if Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) died in office. While the report speaks with those on the ground, it also reveals some shocking details about the senator's well-being.

On Dec. 20, Grassley will become the second-oldest senator ever. The only one older was late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who retired at 100, five months before his death.

After Grassley underwent hip surgery in 2023, some of the "missteps and embarrassments" began. Ones "that often accompany old age," said The Bulwark.

In an incident last year, headlines read, "GOP Senator, 92, Gives Nonsensical Answer to Journo’s Simple Question," after Grassley gave a rambling response to a reporter's simple question. Grassley was asked about Judge James Boasberg, who is still in a battle with the White House over his court orders being violated in 2025. Grassley began commenting about having documents and information on the people who come before his Senate Judiciary Committee. He repeated the same statement twice before Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stepped in.

Bulwark reporter Joe Perticone said that he spoke with a TV producer who recalled another embarrassing moment a few years ago. Grassley and his staff arrived for an interview, but instead of speaking with the reporter or producer, Grassley began talking to his own staffer as if she was the reporter.

"Following an uncomfortable pause, the staffer corrected Grassley and pointed him to the journalist," Perticone wrote, relaying the story.

A one-off doesn't make a crisis, but as with President Donald Trump, a pattern of incidents becomes a theme.

"The more frequently stories like this get passed around, the sooner an aging lawmaker starts to cause concerns among his colleagues. And perhaps just as importantly, these types of stories ring true to anyone who has watched a parent or grandparent struggle in their old age," wrote Perticone.

One local Mason City GOP activist, Gerry Keller, told Perticone that he chatted with Grassley at an August barbecue.

"I asked him if he was gonna run again,” Keller said. “He said, ‘I’m not gonna decide until after this election cycle’s over.’ But I don’t know, I got a feeling he wants to run again.”

The latest round of hearings with former special counsel Jack Smith was another instance of Grassley reading his opening statement directly from his paper. While that's not unusual, Grassley appeared to do the same thing with his questioning. At one point he caught himself from asking a question that didn't make sense given the previous answer.

In May 2026, Grassley similarly fumbled with reading his statement before a Senate committee hearing.

It's a noticeable change in Grassley, who once joked that he should read scripts more often so he wouldn't get in so much trouble.

“I’m not in Hollywood, where you’re given a script to read,” Grassley told Politico in 2009. “You know, maybe that’s what’s wrong with me — I don’t read off what my press secretary says.”

Perticone cited a recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll showing that about 80 percent of Americans agree there should be an age limit for members of Congress.

Politico reports a federal appeals court panel sounded “deeply skeptical” Friday about President Donald Trump’s bid to invalidate a Watergate-era law that governs presidential records — one that formed the base of the criminal charges he faced for stealing classified documents.

“Two judges on the D.C. Circuit panel sharply questioned Justice Department attorney John Bailey about the administration’s assertion that the Presidential Records Act, a federal law intended to ensure that presidential papers are retained by the government, is unconstitutional. That position, legal experts warn, gives Trump leeway to destroy or refuse to turn over White House records from his current term.

On Friday, judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard said the administration’s far-reaching argument that presidents own taxpayer-funded official papers could “lead to absurd and even dangerous results.”

“Can the president then offer on eBay to sell them, all of our national security secrets to the highest bidder?” Millett asked, adding that under the administration’s view, “they’re his property."

“The Presidential Records Act, if unconstitutional, would not be a bar to that,” answered Bailey, arguing that: “Consistent with history and tradition, … the president’s papers belong to the president.”

That was the tradition until Watergate, argued Politico — but then Congress passed a law seizing President Richard Nixon’s incriminating papers and tapes.

“In 1978, lawmakers passed and President Jimmy Carter signed the Presidential Records Act, declaring that the records of all future presidents would be publicly owned,” reports Politico. “That law also sets up mechanisms for Congress, law enforcement and the public to gain access to the records, with advice given to the president usually off limits to the public for at least 12 years.

No president has directly challenged that law until the secretive Trump administration’s Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel opined that the entire statute is unconstitutional. Politico reports the Trump administration also argued that the Presidential Records Act is unfair to the executive branch because Congress has no similar law to govern its own records or those of the federal courts.

“That is … such a sad and such a partisan view,” argued Judge Pillard, however. “It's assuming that the separation of powers doesn't protect the office of the presidency, but only this president, and it's just never been the case.”

Pillard also argued that without the Presidential Records Act, presidents or their family can sell the papers for whim or profit.

“So, the bad boy nephew of the deceased president decides they're going to sell the presidential records to the highest bidder, and that happens to be, you know, the Chinese Communist Party,” argued Pillard, which she said could lead to “blackmail.”

Grabby President Donald Trump is no kind of feminist, but he likes to point to his hiring and promotion of women to silence criticism of both his misogynist policies and personal conduct. His White House chief of staff Susie Wiles is actually the first woman to have the job.

But the Guardian points out that during his second term, there is one common characteristic share by most of those he has jettisoned from his administration.

“In the space of just a few months, half of his eight female cabinet officials have either resigned or been fired. All have been replaced by men,” reports the Guardian. “Several other women in his administration have also departed, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.”

The women are fleeing so fast that on Friday, Trump was forced to deny claims that he was even mulling replacing Wiles. “She’s gonna be here for a long time,” he claimed.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that numerous top male officials, including Trump’s goof--prone defense secretary Pete Hegseth, who has endangered soldiers by sharing military developments and plans on Signal chat, and threatening to embarrass the nation by broadcasting the live feed of shooting a paraplegic in a wheelchair, remains in his post, as does the allegedly drunken and mouthy FBI director Kash Patel.

White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia and her overblown resume were only the latest female casualties, having been fired just five days after taking the job. This short tenure even beat the record of Anthony Scaramucci, who previously held the post of White House communications director only 11 days in 2017.

“In terms of firings, the first domino to fall was former homeland security secretary Kristi Noem, who was the face of Trump’s mass deportation campaign until she was unceremoniously sacked on 5 March,” reports the Guardian. “Her tenure was plagued by controversy, in large part amid national uproar over federal immigration enforcement operations that killed two US citizens in Minneapolis.”

Next fell former attorney general and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi, who was ousted in April after she “failed to sufficiently prosecute his political enemies,” reports the guardian. Bondi had outed herself as “a hopeless partisan” when she refused to open an investigation into the misuse of the Signal messaging app by top intelligence officials. But her mishandling of the Department of Justice’s long-awaited release of the Epstein files, and her exaggerated claims that the administration would be releasing previously unseen information pertaining to Epstein was a blow to Trump’s MAGA base — which was hungering for Democrats to be roped into the Epstein drama as Trump promised.

Former labor secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down in April, after a Department of Labor inspector general investigation led to a series of allegations of misconduct, including an affair with a subordinate and boozing on the job. She was replaced by another man, Keith Sonderling. Patel, who faces his own widescale allegations of intoxication and absence, however, remains FBI director, reports the Guardian.

Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard was forced from her position as Trump’s national intelligence director after being sidelined after testifying to Congress that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon — in direct contradiction to Trump’s argument for attacking Iran. Trump’s hugely unpopular war lingers to this day.

“Gabbard was replaced on an acting basis by Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist with no previous experience in the intelligence sphere, and eventually by Jay Clayton,” reports the Guardian.

And another abrupt departure is Trump’s ambassador Kimberly after weeks of reports that she sought payment from a Trump donor in exchange for access to the administration.

“If you’re a man in the Trump administration, it seems that they reward misconduct,” the Guardian reports Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) saying.

“I’m for women. I’m for men. I’m for everyone,” the Guardian notes Trump saying in a 2018 interview. But not everyone gets to stick around.

The New York Times reports signs are emerging that Russia and other foreign governments are once again seeking to influence American voters — in favor of Trump and Republicans.

An online influence operation backed by the Russian government has been ramping up efforts to use Israel as a political wedge and sow division among U.S., according to a new study by an independent company that tracks digital threats and foreign propaganda campaigns.

The “Doppelgänger” influence operation created a flood of social media posts amplifying perceptions that Democrats have retreated from supporting Israel.

“In appearing to target Democrats with negative content, the Doppelgänger push is just the latest effort by Russia to harm the party and support President Trump since his first run for office in 2016,” reported the Times. “… Doppelgänger is run by Russia’s Social Design Agency, a public relations firm. Both the U.S. government and the European Union have imposed punitive sanctions upon it.”

Sources speaking with the Times said U.S. intelligence officials tried to provide a classified briefing to state officials on the midterm election threats on Thursday—the first of its kind in more than two years. However, Trump administration officials were unable to establish a secure virtual connection to the election personnel, said the sources.

On Wednesday, social media platform X announced it banned 13,000 accounts linked to Iran, Russia and China, said the Times. But, nothing stops Russian and Chinese-backed trolls and software from simply opening new accounts from which to sow division and animosity among voters.

The Times reports international operations have “grown more difficult to track” thanks to a broad pullback by many social media firms. That reversal of fake site subversion happened after condemnation and outcry from conservatives and MAGA elements, who accused the companies of collaborating with the U.S. government to stifle free expression.

Lisa Kaplan, the founder of Alethea, told the Times that the volume of posts in the current campaign, and replies under postings that had high engagement, “indicated that the messaging was likely getting in front of people.”

The campaign included more than 50 fake personas, posing as Israeli women, that posted in “synchronized waves” beginning on Oct. 7, the three-year anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel. The Ties reports a separate network of more than 1,000 accounts then inserted those posts into high-traffic conversations, creating an estimated stack of 150,000 posts.

The Times added that U.S. intelligence findings and numerous reviews have “consistently found that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has favored Trump over Democrats, most of whom are more sympathetic to Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion.”

In September, for example, a network linked to Kremlin trolls posted a series of AI slop social media videos churning out baseless claims against Democrats running in closely contested Senate races.

The campaigns “give us a glimpse of what their objectives are,” said Jean le Roux, a senior researcher at Graphika. “They’re not targeting Republican candidates in the same way.”

The New York Ties reports the U.S. budget deficit is nearing $2 trillion and putting the kibbutz on President Donald Trump’s economy — and his big plans for cutting cost.

The United States budget deficit, which increased to $1.99 trillion this fiscal year from $1.78 trillion in 2025, “approached its highest level since the pandemic, as spending on the military, safety net programs and interest on the debt dwarfed the Trump administration’s cost cuts, Treasury Department figures showed on Friday,” said Times reporter Alan Rappeport.

The widening gap between what the government spends and what it collects in taxes and other revenue comes at a critical moment when investors are already spooked about the nation’s surging debt load, along with stubborn inflation. All of this is driving up borrowing costs. Treasury bond yields boosting interest rates for mortgages, credit cards and auto loans, pushing them to their highest levels in two decades earlier this month.

“Without real action on these vital fiscal issues, America is careening toward an ominous fiscal crisis that would leave all of us much worse off sooner than anyone in Washington apparently wants to believe,” said Carolyn Bourdeaux, executive director of Concord Action, an advocacy group that promotes deficit reduction.

The last time the deficit topped $2 trillion was in 2021, when the pandemic prompted Congress to approve a huge stimulus package to help keep the economy afloat. But analysts point out that there is no pandemic-style crisis forcing the nation to take on that load this time—just a president’s extravagant spending policies.

“Instead, the shortfall stems from increased spending on the military, interest payments on the debt and Social Security benefits, coupled with falling corporate tax receipts as a result of the tax cut package,” reports the Times.

This, explained Bourdeaux, means we’re already accruing a dangerous, outsized amount of debt—which will turn into a black hole when the next expensive crisis rolls along.

“The higher that interest rates move in the government bond market, the less likely it is that governments can finance these interest expenses in a sustainable way, so the stress begets more stress,” said Daleep Singh, chief economist at Prudential Global Investment Management told the Times. “It crescendos in the absence of a credible fiscal plan, which is not forthcoming.”

The Congressional Budget Office said last week that spending in the United States has been pushed higher by the growing cost of Social Security benefits, which are tied to rising inflation, and payments to military personnel. Higher long-term interest rates increased the cost of interest on Trump’s escalating debt by more than $100 billion from 2025. The Ties reports overall, spending was up 6 percent to $7.4 trillion.

The avalanche of Trump-style annual deficit will certainly reduce the fiscal ambitions of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to a distant dream. Bessent said that his goal was to bring the deficit as a share of the economy to 3 percent, said the Times. But after falling from 6.3 percent in 2024 to 5.9 percent in 2025, the measure rose above 6 percent again this year.

President Donald Trump and his administration are so corrupt, it overwhelms ordinary Americans while robbing them blind, at least according to one prominent economist. It goes beyond simply providing special treatment in his tariff policies to people who are close to him, or him earning $2 billion through businesses like cryptocurrency investments since beginning his second term. The problem is the totality of these behaviors, this economist argued — and ordinary Americans are noticing this.

"Donald Trump is robbing Americans blind, and even Republicans are starting to notice," wrote The Bulwark's Catherine Rampell on Friday. "You may recall that back in March, there were some suspiciously timed, uncannily lucrative oil and stock trades. About fifteen minutes before Trump abruptly announced he was retracting some threats against Iran, billions of dollars’ worth of contracts were placed on bets that oil prices would fall and the S&P 500 would jump. And those lucky bastards turned out to be right!"

Rampell proceeded to review cases of seeming insider trading, Trump trying to capitalize on Truth Social, his cryptocurrency ventures and the controversies over who donates to the White House ballroom. Then she pointed out polls reveal Americans are noticing this and upset by it.

"While the wording of those polls doesn’t specify who is engaging in perceived corruption, we now have other evidence that even Republicans believe their party leader is governing on behalf of his own pocketbook," Rampell wrote. "In new AP-NORC polling released this week, three-quarters of Americans said Trump has prioritized his personal financial interests and the interests of people close to him since taking office again in 2025."

She added, "A majority of Republicans agreed [55 percent]."

Rampell also wrote that in order to do these things, Trump and his supporters are literally redistributing wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

"Hiring has flatlined, real wages are falling, and food insecurity is rising," Rampell pointed out. "Polls show that Americans are increasingly anxious about their finances, especially when it comes to food costs."

She continued, "In fact, one in five Americans says they got food from a food bank or food pantry in the past year, according to new data from the Pew Research Center3: SNAP enrollment has declined for two interconnected reasons, both created by Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill. First, the law imposed tighter work requirements, creating massive new paperwork demands for both beneficiaries and states (which administer the program). Second, it incentivized states to err on the side of just purging people from the rolls whenever this swelling paperwork burden threatens to overwhelm them. (You can read more about how this works in an edition of Receipts from June.)"

Earlier in October, former President Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary Robert Reich elaborated on how Trump's seeming corruption hurts ordinary Americans.

"Trump’s tariffs offer another example of higher prices connected to corruption," Reich wrote. "The tariffs are import taxes that have increased annual household costs by an estimated $1,100, according to The Budget Lab at Yale."

He continued, "Again, though, the price increases tell only half the story. Trump’s tariffs have enabled Trump to give out tariff waivers and carve-outs to industries and companies that do him favors."

Similarly in August, former President Bill Clinton's Undersecretary of Commerce and top economic adviser Dr. Robert J. Shapiro claimed that Trump's deficit spending is effectively robbing future generations by putting the burden of paying off a massive national debt on their shoulders.

"[Former President George W.] Bush undid what Clinton did," Shapiro told AlterNet. "[Former President Barack] Obama undid only about a quarter of what Bush had done. And so the deficit, as a share of GDP, begins moving up.You can see it in the data — it's about 3.3 percent of GDP on average during the 2010s, through 2019, since I don't count recession years."

He continued, "Then you get [former President Joe] Biden. Biden doesn't undo any of what Trump did; he leaves it all in place. He runs very large deficits at first because of post-pandemic spending, to maintain demand. And he makes no effort to address certain underlying features — mainly the aging of the boomers, which is completed during the Biden years as the last cohort moves into retirement. So Medicare spending, in particular, goes up. He has some additional spending, but nothing of great magnitude. He essentially ignores the deficit.

Shapiro concluded, "Then Trump comes in and doubles down. What Biden had done would have led to a gradually shrinking deficit over the next ten years, because the economy is growing. What Trump does instead is say, 'No — we're going to have huge deficits as far as the eye can see,' meaning deficits equal to six or seven percent of GDP, which is unprecedented in the postwar era. It's a real outlier. And that's driven entirely by his tax changes, which carry enormous budgetary costs, plus a wholesale, large-scale increase in defense spending. So how much of this is Trump? A majority of it — not all of it, but a majority."

The rapid administrative implosion of White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia has exposed the glaring deficiencies of the MAGA movement's self-proclaimed "meritocracy" . Concluding abruptly on Friday after a mere five days in office , Zacharia’s unprecedentedly brief tenure collapsed under the weight of an agonizingly inept debut at the briefing room podium and a full-scale resume fraud scandal that unraveled in record time.

The final act of her brief employment unfolded on the South Lawn, where President Donald Trump signaled her departure to reporters. Trump recounted an internal conversation where he subtly nudged his press secretary toward the door, framing her removal not as a firing but as an act of administrative mercy. “I said, ‘Honestly, if I were you, I’d reconsider,’” Trump remarked, pushing her under the bus while publicly bemoaning how she had "suffered at the hands of the press.” Within hours, media reports confirmed she was officially out.

The trajectory toward her ouster began during Tuesday's introductory press briefing, where she was tapped to replace Karoline Leavitt . The performance was an unmitigated disaster that left seasoned journalists dumbfounded. Zacharia spent the bulk of her truncated 14-minute appearance reading stilted, fragmented opening remarks with her eyes glued to her notes, prompting The View’s Ana Navarro to brutally observe that "second graders read better" . Network hosts were so unimpressed by the spectacle that MS NOW host Stephanie Ruhle cut away from the briefing after less than three minutes. In a bizarre rhetorical slip, Zacharia momentarily referred to Trump as her husband before taking just three questions and abruptly fleeing the room.

However, the primary catalyst for her firing was the immediate unraveling of her professional biography. Both Zacharia and the president had repeatedly marketed her to the public as a credentialed "attorney." Yet, an independent record search quickly revealed an embarrassing flub: there is no record of Zacharia ever holding a license to practice law in California or any other American jurisdiction. Documentation confirmed that while she graduated from Pepperdine University’s law school in 2011, she failed the California bar exam. Legal experts quickly warned that by presenting herself as "general counsel" for Ric Grenell’s conservative advocacy group, Fix California, Zacharia may have actively violated the law regarding the unauthorized practice of law.

When initially cornered by reporters on the tarmac about where she had actually passed the bar exam, Zacharia offered the incoherent, evasive excuse: "When I moved to China."She later claimed she had misheard the question due to the deafening roar of Marine One.

Ultimately, her attempts to spin the crisis on friendly television networks sealed her fate. During a Thursday evening appearance on Fox News, host Sean Hannity confronted her with her own falsehoods, pressing her on the extensive history of media appearances and social media posts where she claimed the attorney title. Her defense—sheepishly suggesting that the posts "were retweets"—failed to contain the political fallout. By Friday morning, a defensive Zacharia appeared on television to complain that the “legacy media” was making her an unnecessary subject of conversation . Hours later, she was gone. Zacharia's five-day tenure stands as a definitive cautionary tale of MAGA cronyism, accelerating what critics describe as America's deepening intellectual crisis at the highest levels of government.

Just ahead of firing the newly appointed White House press secretary, Katie Zacharia, just five days into her new role, President Donald Trump reportedly told advisors during a meeting with no media or reporters present that Zacharia has “no talent” and “shouldn’t be on television,” insiders told Politico, paraphrasing Trump’s words. His critique came after Zacharia's inaugural press conference, where she struggled to answer questions from reporters, stumbled over words, and read from a document rather than speaking off the fly.

Earlier today, President Donald Trump told reporters he asked Zacharia to reconsider staying in the role. "I said to her, 'Honestly, if I were you, I'd reconsider. You think about it, but I would reconsider,'" Trump said. "I said, 'Katie, you know, you don't have to do this if you don't want,'" the president said. "She said, 'This is a lot tougher.' I said, 'Welcome to the world of Trump.'"

A senior White House official told Fox News that Zacharia is "transitioning out" of her role. She has yet to speak directly with the media about her axing.

Zacharia makes history as the shortest-tenured White House press secretary. She beat the record of Anthony Scaramucci, who previously held the record with an 11-day stint as White House communications director in 2017.

Scaramucci spoke on her ousting, writing on social media, “Records are made to be broken. But I take no pleasure in other people’s pain,” he tweeted.

Following a press conference that many considered to be disastrous, her week didn’t get much better in her conversations with the media. She appeared in segments on FOX News where she was questioned about allegedly misrepresenting herself as a lawyer.

In an interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday, Oct. 15, he asked her, “You went to Pepperdine law school, but you did not pass the bar exam, correct?” She responded: “Correct.” During her first press briefing, when asked to name the state where she passed the exam, she replied, “When I moved to China.” She later told The New York Times in a phone call that she misunderstood the question.

After failing the California bar exam, she reportedly relocated to Beijing after her time at Pepperdine University. While there, she worked as an associate on the international practice team at the Zhong Lun Law firm. In a separate interview with Real America’s Voice, Zacharia said she viewed the results from her bar exam as “somewhat inconsequential” because she knew she’d soon be moving overseas.

A lucrative corner of the Trump family's business interests could end up before the Supreme Court, a major setback for their money-making operations.

A bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from 39 states and Washington, D.C., is asking the justices to examine whether states can regulate sports-related contracts offered by Kalshi, a prediction market platform with direct financial ties to Donald Trump Jr.

The president's eldest son holds an equity interest in Kalshi and also has links to rival Polymarket through his investment firm 1789 Capital. The firm in which he is a partner has investments in Polymarket reportedly totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

The dispute is focused on whether these contracts should be treated as federally regulated financial products or gambling subject to state laws.

The Trump administration has backed federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which could limit individual states' ability to regulate the industry.

State officials say those rules protect consumers and preserve their regulatory authority.

In a Friday opinion column in Mediaite, Ana Marie Cox argued that a Supreme Court ruling against Kalshi could deliver a huge setback to the controversial industry which is benefiting from the administration's approach.

“A Supreme Court decision against Kalshi could pop the prediction market bubble,” Cox wrote.

New Jersey set off the legal challenge by attempting to apply its gambling laws to Kalshi, but a federal appeals court sided with the company, while other appeals courts have taken different positions on states' regulatory powers.

The attorneys general want to take the fight to the Supreme Court.

“They cannot strip the States of their core sovereign power through relabeling and window-dressing,” the coalition wrote in its brief.

The National Football League, tribal governments and gambling groups also joined the fight, arguing that the platforms should not operate beyond the state safeguards already put in place.

Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts on political appointments, elections and other real-world events, and we have already seen White House insiders with privileged information profiting from it

Cox has an example involving three suspiciously timed bets on the appointment of White House press secretary Katie Zacharia. The trades, which only had a 1 percent probability for Zacharia, are being investigated by Kalshi. She also made note of other reports about profits made by traders betting on Trump administration decisions that looked suspiciously like insider trading.

A teleprompter minder made over $100,000 buying predictions on what Trump would say, and a report found that $2.4 million worth of trades were related to specific events in Trump's Iran war.

Cox predicted the conservative-majority Supreme Court might ultimately give the administration what they want.

Whether the justices would even be willing to hear the case is yet to be seen, but with growing concerns about the prediction market, a huge blow to the Trump family’s latest money-making scheme could be coming.

Republican strategist and polling guru Frank Luntz can’t seem to understand why President Donald Trump struts around at rallies bragging that his voters will never abandon him—especially at a time when so many are.

“Why is he doing this?” Luntz demanded of CNN anchor Boris Sanchez on Thursday. “As a pollster, as a focus group moderator. Why is he challenging people to stand up and be against him? That I don't understand at this moment when the public is nervous about the economy, nervous about affordability, concerned about what's going on across the globe. Why challenge people that way? Why not empathize? Why not bring people together rather than pushing them out? I don't I don't get that.”

“I've never seen numbers like this, this close to an election,” Luntz said, referring to the president’s record low approval of 36 percent. Trump has also lost ground with younger voters, nonwhite voters, and even his former stronghold of voters without a college degree. Only 29 percent approve of his handling of the economy. “That's not good at all. And as recently as three weeks ago he called affordability a hoax. It's not a hoax if you can't afford eggs. It's not a hoax if you can't afford steak.”

Luntz went on to say that “no one has had a bigger impact on American society in his first two years that Donald Trump” because he “absolutely controlled the agenda. He controlled what we talked about. He controlled where we pursued our politics.”

“I don't know if they understand how people actually feel, that they are anxious, nervous, angry because their lives are tougher today than they used to be. And one of the reasons why they voted for him is because they saw that he was going to fix it, and they were grateful for this,” Luntz complained. “Donald Trump had the most amazing recovery of any political figure ever. And now I look at these numbers. And if the polls are right … this is going to be a very big night for Democrats.”

Luntz said polls are not as clear as they used to be because Republicans don’t participate, but focus groups suggest many Republicans will not participate in the midterms.

“They sit like this: Their hands are folded and they don't really care. They're looking down and looking around because they're not engaged. They're not involved and turnout determines everything,” said Luntz.

Luntz added however, polls have let him down before, particularly in 2016 when Trump unexpectedly beat Hillary Clinton.

“I was so convinced that I was right. By the way, I'm going to tell you something I never told before: I called Dick Cheney that night in 2016. I said, ‘sir, Donald Trump's going to lose. Your daughter [then GOP. Sen. Liz Chaney] is fine because it's Wyoming. But I think Republicans are going to have a really, really bad night tonight,’” Luntz recalled. “Having to apologize to Dick Cheney 24 hours later — I promise you, you do not want to go through that experience. I was afraid he was going to take me hunting after that.”

New press secretary Katie Zacharia did not even last a "Scaramucci," the measure of time that Anthony Scaramucci lasted at the White House (11 days).

Wall Street Journal reporter Meredith McGraw reported Friday that Trump told reporters he encouraged Zacharia to reconsider the job.

“I said Katie you don’t have to do this if you don’t want. She said this is a lot tougher. I said welcome to the world of Trump!” Trump told reporters.

Trump claimed she'll likely stay in the administration "in some form" but "it may be a more pleasant form."

Another White House official confirmed she's "transitioning out."

Zacharia had her first press briefing on Tuesday and it lasted less than 15 minutes. She answered most questions about herself and spoke about herself and called only on far-right news outlets.

Another embarrassing moment came outside of the White House when reporters noted that she's long claimed on Fox News to be a "corporate lawyer" and practicing "corporate law." When she was asked about where she passed the bar, she answered something about China, leaving even the president to appear to make a double-take.

Over the past 24 hours, she's tried to clean things up by appearing on "Fox and Friends" as well as "Sean Hannity." Neither went well as the hosts grilled her about her

“I was watching your interview last night on Sean’s show, and God bless you because it’s — other than the president, I think it would be the hardest job because you have to know all the facts, you have to speak off the cuff, and you were just thrown into this role. Is there anything that you would say differently or clarify differently on Sean’s interview last night or the White House press briefing, your first briefing, anything you would do differently?” Earhardt asked Zacharia.

She tried to dodge.

Instead, she said her focus has been on her, and it's misplaced.

“You know, I’m just so grateful to be here, and I’m really looking forward to being an asset to President Trump and focusing on what he’s doing for the American people,” she said. “And the legacy media wants to put the focus and attention to me because they want to be distracted; they want to be distracted from the major wins that President Trump is making for America. So I’m looking forward to the next week. It is a blitz week. He is traveling almost every single day for huge packed rallies and that is what I’m looking forward to.”

"So half a Scaramucci?" quipped Claude Taylor, "Room Rater" creator and former White House staffer.

Rose Benson echoed that her life is difficult, "Especially when the job is defending your behavior.

Even MS NOW's Alicia Menendez reported the news about Zacharia, she only lasted "half a Scaramucci."

"At least Katie Zacharia can always return to her career as an attorney after all of this is over. Oh wait…" the influencer and podcast host Jo Carducci (@JoJoFromJerz) joked.

After her first press conference, "The Lincoln Project," known for ridiculing the president, used the Liz Truss method of time, which is measuring whether she can outlast a head of lettuce.

- YouTube youtu.be

President Donald Trump's first assistant U.S. attorney keeps getting caught in lies, according to one keen observer.

National security expert Marcy Wheeler pointed to a recent tweet from Bill Essayli listing details about the case against California and Los Angeles County over a conspiracy theory about mail ballots. According to the federal government, 20,000 of the people who got ballots were "likely noncitizens."

The administration has been caught in this fight before. In Nevada, the administration used this same system and claimed that as many as 15,903 noncitizens might be on the state’s voter rolls. The state demanded evidence, and Homeland Security whittled the list down to 185 names, claiming it had "manually" verified they were noncitizens.

Nevada officials then checked the 185 names against state records and concluded every one was a U.S. citizen.

In a letter to DHS, Deputy Attorney General Greg Ott wrote: “As for the 185 individuals, our records indicate that they were citizens,” adding that the federal government had “provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise.”

Now California must use the same system and face the same allegations. So, the parties asked the judge to block the federal government's demand.

The Justice Department argued that California must segregate those ballots until their citizenship status can be verified, and Attorney General Todd Blanche accused the state of refusing to comply with federal law.

Essayli falsely claimed on X, "Make no mistake: California has no interest in protecting the integrity of its elections. We presented the evidence. Their answers: "It's not widespread fraud." "It's too late we already mailed the ballots." "It's already illegal to vote illegally." "We can't trust your evidence." A law that isn't enforced is meaningless. Today we are asking a court to require California to follow the law and not count ballots cast by noncitizens," he claimed.

Wheeler said that in this case, Essayli was "outright lying here."

She cited, "The same untested garbage that has been shown to be fraudulent in other states. He is confessing to a conspiracy to deprive naturalized citizens, like Harmeet Dhillon, of their right to vote," Wheeler bashed.

Indeed, Essayli's claims still have not been independently verified and resemble a system that failed in Nevada.

His problem is that the lawsuit itself describes the people as “likely noncitizens,” not confirmed noncitizens. California officials say the federal government has not explained the basis for the suspicion or provided enough identifying information to verify the list.

President Donald Trump's recent decision to hand over $4 billion to Russia despite sanctions that he implemented is bringing up questions about his continued relationship with President Vladimir Putin.

In a podcast with The Bulwark's publisher, Sarah Longwell, former lawyer for Robert Mueller's special counsel team, Andrew Weissmann called Trump a "freaking moron" for continuing to support Putin over Ukraine.

"So, one: you're supporting authoritarians over democracy. A true national hero over an actual villain of the United States. For what? You've relieved that country of sanctions. They're you're giving them, you know, billions of dollars of sales, which they weren't supposed to get for a trickle of diesel that isn't going to make a difference to America, in terms of any sort of significant way. You know, would make a difference to America? End the g---amn war!" Weismann exclaimed.

Longwell agreed, saying with frustration that Putin is aiding Iran in killing Americans, but that "Trump has always been looking for a reason to work and do business with Putin."

Weissmann, who spent two years of his life researching and investigating the Trump and Russia connection. An incredulous Longwell said that Trump was "using our energy crisis as a pretense to like get in bed with Putin, which is clearly always wanted to do or been in. I mean, we've got these weird Russians paying for Don Jr.'s wedding!"

She asked whether Weissmann still wants to "get him on this."

"So, he managed to sort of politicize all of that," Weissmann said of the Muller investigation. "The thing that just to get cut through the chase is I still don't know the answer to what is the connection between the two of them, but I know that one theory, the innocent explanation is that Donald Trump just has a fascination with and emulates authoritarians."

While all of that is true, it doesn't answer the question, he added. It isn't as if there's a "Russian voter bloc in the United States."

Longwell closed by saying that she truly hopes that someday the world can get to the bottom of what was going on between Trump and Russia and whether it's an affinity or if it's simply that Putin is nice to him and pretends to like him and promote him.

"But also, this is where you have Steve Witoff and Jared [Kushner] freelancing on all of these things where they have financial interest. I don't know if you saw the story today," Longwell continued. "Again, we're really derailed here, but the a story just came out today that was tracking the ballroom donations and all of the favors that were given to those people who did that. And so, you know, I think some of this is just we live we have the most corrupt president of in American history."

From the executive branch perspective, Weissmann said that they operate exactly like Putin and Russia with the "pay-to-play" politics.

- YouTube youtu.be

One of the political consultants who the New York Times recently reported received hundreds of thousands of dollars to advise the Russia-aligned government of Republika Srpska was previously named a senior adviser to Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s campaign in February.

On Oct. 6, the New York Times reported LaCivita and another adviser traveled to Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina to advise the country’s government before its recent election.

The Times and other national reports identified LaCivita as the co-manager of President Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign and a senior adviser to the MAGA Inc. super PAC.

While LaCivita is more well-known for his work for Trump and MAGA Inc., he has also worked in Idaho.

In February, Little announced that LaCivita joined the Brad Little for Governor campaign as a senior adviser.

“Chris’ immense experience and understanding of political campaigns and strategy in races all across the country will be a huge asset to our campaign operation,” Little said in a written statement issued Feb. 26. “His insight and ability to deliver winning messages and tactics are unparalleled. I am glad to have him on the team.”

Efforts to reach LaCivita this week were unsuccessful.

Little’s campaign manager, Joan Vargas, did not respond to multiple requests from the Idaho Capital Sun asking if LaCivita still serves as a senior adviser to Little, and whether Little knew about the trip.

Back when he joined Little’s campaign in February, LaCivita issued a written statement saying he was excited to help Little get re-elected in Idaho.

“Joining the Brad Little for Governor campaign is a great honor and opportunity,” LaCivita said. “Gov. Little has been delivering results for Idahoans, and he is just getting started. I look forward to working with his team to keep Idaho one of the best states in the country.”

It was not immediately clear what work LaCivita did for Little’s campaign or if LaCivita still serves as a senior adviser on Little’s campaign.

In its story, the New York Times said it is common for political consultants to also work with foreign candidates and governments. However, the New York Times said LaCivita’s trip to Republika Srpska was notable because it occurred while LaCivita is working to help Trump-aligned candidates in the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

With Election Day 2026 just weeks away and control of Congress hanging in the balance, the results will almost certainly hinge on voter turnout, just as they did in 2024.

Given that genuinely undecided voters are scarce — as little as 5% to 7% of the electorate, according to major polls — both Democrats and Republicans must look to mobilize their rank-and-file supporters. To do so, the Republican Party has bet strongly this year on a strategy of convincing people that voter fraud is rampant.

As a scholar of U.S. politics, I see this as a high-risk strategy for Republican candidates and American democracy. That’s because reduced trust in election integrity can reduce motivation to vote – even if based on flawed information. But it’s not at all clear which Americans are most likely to stay home in November.

Voter fraud vs. reality

Voter fraud is not a real problem in the United States. Study after study, by public officials and think tanks, has shown that voting by noncitizens and other ineligible voters happens only at minuscule, statistically insignificant levels.

Nonetheless, rhetoric from the Trump administration about voter fraud has been pervasive. Consider the recent claim by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin that Nevada had nearly 16,000 noncitizens on its voter rolls – a number reduced to 185 when state authorities pressed for details, and reduced to zero when the state investigated the names provided.

There is comparable behavior from Congress. My own research on political communication has shown that a substantial number of members of Congress, strongly skewing Republican, make frequent use of rhetoric that undermines democratic norms and delegitimizes political institutions.

The strategy ties readily into President Donald Trump’s persistent false claims that he won the 2020 presidential election. It also ties into his administration’s strongly anti-immigrant agenda, which spreads fear of noncitizens corrupting U.S. politics.

How does this uncertain political environment influence voters?

There is clear data showing that voter confidence in elections has fallen across party lines: Only 65% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats and 57% of independent voters are very or somewhat confident that the 2026 vote count will be reliable. Conventional wisdom suggests such discouraging numbers would depress turnout.

It’s not as simple as that, however.

What motivates voters

Extensive research confirms the axiom that a sense of civic duty is the strongest predictor of whether someone will vote. It supersedes trust, partisanship and policy preferences.

Any campaign’s quest to mobilize additional voters, therefore, must find them among citizens without a strong sense of civic duty. But among these people, diminished trust in democratic processes can play out in counterintuitive ways.

Recent research on German voters is relevant to the U.S.: It shows that among more passive voters – those following cues from political elites – reduced trust in elections can depress motivation to vote. That’s because there’s no trustworthy result that voters are seeking to affirm.

Conversely, among voters with greater skepticism about elite messaging, reduced trust can motivate increased turnout as an attempted corrective for a flawed system.

What does this mean for potential voters in the U.S.? Among Republicans, it appears that the party’s strategy carries a strong risk of backlash.

Findings from MIT’s Election Lab confirm that cues from political elites are a powerful factor in voter behavior. Specifically, cues setting expectations of a disappointing or untrustworthy result will reduce motivation. Why vote if you don’t expect it to help achieve the desired result?

The same study finds Republican voters broadly inclined to believe GOP leaders’ cues about voter fraud and to frame their expectations accordingly. And once they’ve made that shift, they cling firmly to the belief, even in the face of contrary empirical evidence or messaging from within the party.

In the current election cycle, 50% of Republicans surveyed distrust mail-in voting, and 51% fear voting by noncitizens. They expect election results to be fraudulent. This likely won’t mobilize them, as there’s no positive result they can expect to affirm. The Republican Party’s messaging has painted its voters into a corner.

Democrats, meanwhile, are less inclined to believe claims of voter fraud. But they are more inclined to be concerned about attempts to undermine the midterms by political elites making such claims. Examples include the Trump administration’s efforts to sow doubt about voting by mail and about alleged noncitizen voting.

These efforts increase motivation to vote among Democrats. Unlike GOP voters, they see the capacity to correct for the system’s vulnerabilities – the potential and urgency to overwhelm attempts at voter suppression through higher turnout.

An election integrity officer, in red, trains poll watchers at the Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana, Calif., on Nov. 1, 2022. Television monitors display what each employee is looking at on their desk for observers to watch. Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images

Truth and trust

Opponents of Trump and the GOP may find these diverging effects encouraging. No matter the results this November, however, we’re left with a precarious dynamic. Increasing numbers of voters lack trust in elections and make their decisions to vote – or not – based on limited or flawed information.

Fortunately, there are signs of hope.

Although voters in general are poorly informed about how elections are conducted, they can and do respond to clear information familiarizing them with election processes.

I’ve seen this myself over the years, working with nonpartisan efforts to register young adults and train them as poll watchers. And in the current election cycle, there have already been widespread efforts to broaden public awareness about the fact that state officials, not federal ones, have authority over voter rolls and election security.

Meanwhile, fewer Americans are expected to vote by mail this year – whether due to fear of fraud or fear of the Post Office. If they instead vote in person, a silver lining is that positive personal experiences with poll workers are also associated with increased voter trust.

Looking beyond November, what Americans can hope for is a cycle in which clear election outcomes provide an opportunity to inform voters of how and why the system works. That’s the way to motivate more political engagement and voter turnout in the future.

Christopher Miller, Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law (PPEL), University of Richmond

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nearly 50 million Americans ages 18 to 29 are eligible to vote in the upcoming midterm elections, and about 60% say they plan to. If they follow through, it would break midterm turnout records for voters under 30.

The planned $500 million Trump-branded tower destined for Serbia is now at the center of a criminal case after an explosive report reveals the country's president personally pushed officials to clear the way.

A Thursday investigation by The Guardian revealed leaked documents and interviews which alleged that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić called heritage officials to his office in February 2024 and pressured them to remove legal protections from a historic building in central Belgrade.

The place was meant to be a hotel and a residential tower, having been backed by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, and intended to bear the Trump name.

The issue was that the building, which was the former Yugoslav military headquarters and had suffered damage as a result of NATO's 1999 bombing campaign, had cultural status protected by law, so removal of that status needed a formal expert evaluation rather than just a presidential decree.

Two individuals who were acquainted with the meeting said that Vučić denounced the officials as lazy and incompetent and made it clear that they should either comply or resign.

A leaked agreement revealed a free 99-year lease for Kushner’s company. A separate contract reviewed by the publication committed Serbia to removing the site’s heritage protection.

Two heritage officials resisted pressure from Finance Minister Siniša Mali, according to testimony summarized in the criminal indictment, but were ultimately forced to resign.

Serbia revoked the building’s protected status ten days after Trump won the 2024 presidential election, and prosecutors later alleged that an official forged the expert opinion used to justify the move.

What followed was a criminal investigation leading to indictments of the Culture Minister Nikola Selaković and other officials last December over alleged wrongdoing connected to the site, which Selaković denies.

Kushner’s company relented and backed out of the project, and a rep for Trump’s business said, per The Guardian: “The Trump Organization has no plans to develop any project in Belgrade, was never, at any point, involved in any discussions or negotiations to acquire any site in Belgrade and denies any involvement in or knowledge of the alleged claims.”

“We have lost an exceptional investment,” Vučić said after the project fell apart before threatening to hold accountable those who are responsible.

The investigation also found that a February 2024 meeting involving Vučić is absent from the indictment, even though prosecutors acknowledged having evidence about it.

A spokesperson for the prosecution said that the investigators were looking into whether or not other people could be held criminally liable.

Vučić and Mali have not been charged and claim that they have done nothing wrong. Neither Trump nor Kushner has been charged with a crime in the case.

The October 25 election in Serbia is now affected by the case, with the hearing of a key witness being postponed until after the voters have cast their ballots.

The fact that the project has been abandoned has led to Serbia seeing more anti-corruption protests and now presents the Trump family with a new legal problem regarding their global business plans.

President Donald Trump has long claimed that his administration has lowered inflation and created a so-called "golden age." Despite those assertions, Americans indicate overwhelmingly that they feel otherwise.

Now a political analyst explains how Trump is able to spread propaganda to obscure inflation numbers from the very people living through rising prices — and, notably, a dangerous truth Trump is concealing in his public statements.

"The actual inflation numbers aren’t good for President Donald Trump and his party," wrote CNN political analyst Daniel Dale on Thursday. "So Trump has come up with something of a solution: just use fake inflation numbers."

Dale added, "Trump has been lying about inflation throughout the midterm election campaign. Among other things, he has falsely declared he has 'already stopped the inflation' (it accelerated again in September), that 'prices are now coming way down' (they have continued rising), and that prices are now 'way down' from when former president Joe Biden left office in January 2025 (they are up 5.4 [percent] on average)."

After reviewing the various ways Trump has mischaracterized inflation numbers, Dale pointed out that the president's apparent fixation on arguing that prices are lower under him than under Biden is leading to the public not receiving accurate information about its own economic health.

"For years, Trump has invented fictional economic numbers that work better for his purposes than the actual economic numbers," Dale said. "So it’s very possible he’s just lying about the year-over-year inflation rates that tend to be the most commonly discussed – wildly exaggerating the highest rate under Biden and significantly reducing the most recent rates this year."

Overall, Dale concluded that neither Biden nor Trump had the worst inflation in recent American history.

"Trump could fairly say the 9.1 [percent] peak year-over-year inflation under Biden was the highest in more than 40 years," Dale concluded. "But even that 9.1 [percent] rate was much lower than the all-time high, 23.7 [perfect], or the highest point of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, 14.8 [percent], which was reached in 1980. And the rate then fell significantly before Trump returned to office."

That said, many of Trump's policies are actively increasing inflation.

"The answer to our outsized deficits and debt, of course, is to address the source, by raising revenues and cutting defense spending," economist Dr. Robert J. Shapiro, who was a top economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, told AlterNet in August. The only president in recent history to balance the budget, Clinton ran four surpluses in eight years; Trump has always run deficits, including $40 trillion for the current fiscal year.

"In every respect that affects deficits and debt, the United States has become a global outlier," Shapiro explained. "We have by far the largest deficits we've ever run during an economic expansion. Our national debt held by investors alone is $32 trillion of the $40 trillion total — the other $8 trillion is held by government trust funds, mainly Social Security and the Fed. Our national debt is greater than the combined national debts of China, Europe, and Great Britain. Our defense spending is greater than the combined defense spending of China, Russia, India, Ukraine, and Europe. And our tax burden — all taxes at every level, as a share of GDP — is smaller than that of any other developed nation comparable to the United States.We have become an outlier in all of these ways, and the bond market is beginning to say: you can't sustain this. We are playing with dynamite."

"Clinton convinced Democrats in Congress to double down with larger tax increases for wealthy people, raised the corporate tax rate, increased Medicare taxes for wealthy people, and hiked the federal gasoline tax," Shapiro argued. "It worked: Those changes, along with strong economic growth, increased federal revenues 54 percent after inflation over his two terms. Clinton also convinced Democrats to cut defense spending by 12 percent on a sustained basis, another first."

Shapiro also told AlterNet in August that Trump simply refuses to cut down on spending in crucial areas.