News & Politics

Low-turnout Republicans are going to let Trump hang this year: new polling

If President Donald Trump and the Republican Party were hoping to stoke a fire under disenchanted Republicans this year, it isn’t working, according to analyst G. Elliot Morris.

“The president thinks he can activate lower-turnout voters who like his agenda. But polls show his former supporters oppose his key policies, and don’t think he’s focused on affordability,” reports Morris, citing an aggregate of polls showing moderate interest GOP voters not only being disenchanted with the midterm election but downright hostile to Trump’s policies.

Morris said Republican strategists are banking on the convention to “help the GOP by increasing turnout among Republican voters who have so far this cycle been less likely to say they’ll come out this November.”

But Morris said he has combined “all eight of this year’s monthly Strength In Numbers/Verasight polls into one mega-poll proving over 11,000 interviews with self-reported registered voters on everything from their most important issue. This includes state vote choice in the midterms, approval of Trump overall as well as a dozen issues. It also includes respondents’ demographics and reported vote choice in 2024, said Morris.

He added that his “mega-poll” provides a breakdown of how voters feel about the current administration’s performance on their most important issues according to who they voted for in 2024 and their stated likelihood to vote again this November.

“With this we can directly test the theory that low-turnout Republicans will be activated by more Trump,” said Morris—but he added: “This is unlikely.”

“According to our polling, voters who are less likely to turn out to vote are actually much less approving of Trump overall and on key issues,” said Morris, citing a graph showing reported Trump approval and disapproval overall on deportations, inflation, and health care by all respondents.

This is why Trump and the RNC’s mid-term Trump-O-Palooza in Dallas this week is likely going to fizzle when it comes to pushing so-so GOP voters to the polls. Elliot says Trump is not the draw the RNC might think he is, and this will likely translate in a November enthusiasm gap between the GOP and Democrats.

“The initial reviews of the Republicans’ midterm convention — codenamed “Trumpapalooza” — are in, and they are not pretty,” said Morris. “… If you’re puzzled by the logic of holding a national convention featuring a president with an approval rating of just 35 percent, you’re not alone.

The idea was actually Trump’s, reports Morris, quoting the president saying Wednesday night that “When I’m on the ticket, Republicans always do very well. We won the presidency three times we won. We won it big, and we also won everything else because whatever it is — people came and we won the Senate.”

Cost of MAGA merch skyrockets —thanks to Trump

On Thursday, a new report revealed that MAGA merchandise sold at the Republican Midterm Convention has been hit by inflation. According to the Bulwark, not only have prices climbed on mementos championing President Donald Trump – who repeatedly promised on the 2024 campaign trail that he’d bring down prices “on day one” – but pro-MAGA retailers have seen general sales decline as Trump’s approval rating has plummeted.

Costs have shot up following Trump’s decision to launch war with Iran, and as the Bulwark writes, “It turns out that not even campaign merchandise is immune to inflation. Many of the same kinds of campaign items Trump’s GOP was selling while their man was campaigning on a promise to fix everything in 2024 have gotten noticeably more expensive in 2026.” For example, the t-shirts promoting the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee were $35, but cotton tees for the Republican midterm convention in Dallas this week are $40, and they no longer include a chest pocket. In 2024, a tumbler cup was $30. Now, the RNC sells virtually the same ones for $5 more.

At the same time, the Bulwark notes that Democratic merch prices have remained “surprisingly steady. A rainbow Pride flag donkey tee is $32 in 2026, just as it was in 2024. Their 'Good Trouble' mug honoring civil rights icon and former Georgia Rep. John Lewis has stayed even at $20. If you want a Republican mug instead, you’ll need to shell out $10 more.”

According to the Bulwark, “Trump-themed swag retailers outside the FEC-regulated merchandising sphere are feeling a financial strain, as the Wall Street Journal reported last week, although inflation isn’t the only factor: The president’s historic levels of unpopularity may also have something to do with their woes. Many MAGA-centered merchandise retailers and their suppliers are seeing sales dwindle, according to interviews with wholesalers, sales representatives, business owners and employees. As the president’s approval rating hovers near all-time lows, imperiling Republicans’ control of Congress, store owners blame a stagnant economy and weaker MAGA enthusiasm for lower sales. Some stores are closing permanently.”

Despite the suffering economy, argues the Bulwark, “The Republican party’s official merchandise operation shouldn’t need to jack up its product prices, because political donations, which is what their sales are, are about volume, not wringing extra dollars out of individual sales. And the volume will come naturally provided the campaign itself has the right appeal. But squeezing individual buyers for a few extra bucks becomes more attractive when voter enthusiasm — and with it, donor volume — is on the decline.”

Leakers 'truly freaked' as Trump’s 'Colonel Vodka' runs rampant: biographer

President Donald Trump’s biographer Michael Wolff claims “there is nobody anywhere in Washington or across the defense industry who doesn’t believe Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has to go.”

“[They all believe] that he’s a menace, an incalculable danger, an existential threat,” reports Wolff. “Daily leaks about his blunders, stupidity, malfeasance, and weird conduct — his wife has moved into the Pentagon as his effective second-in-command — have become part of a growing rear-guard rebellion to get him out.”

Over in the White House, Wolff said “the president’s closest circle of advisors believe Hegseth needs to be fired — yesterday is their timetable.”

“Everyone is alarmed — truly, freaked out.” Reports Wolff. “He has no supporters left anywhere. Except for Donald Trump.”

Wolff’s information come on the heels of several revelations as leakers approach the press with news of outlandish behavior, undue firings and a litany of policy missteps.

Wolff said until Trump entered the White House for his second term, everybody in the past who had overseen the planet’s biggest military budget “has had extensive military, corporate, or political experience,” regardless of whether or not voters judged them successful. Each had careers and resumes that “logically placed them in the post.”

“Because the job is so do-or-die, no president, in the modern age, has chosen to appoint anyone who might be considered an outlier,” said Wolff.

But, of course, that was before Trump, he added.

“Hegseth’s resume is not just sparse but lacks all relevant experience otherwise associated with running any complex organization — not to mention the largest organization on earth. It is, in fact, mostly marked by significant failures,” said Wolff, quoting research and source information. “His efforts at a political career and then in running veterans’ organizations — after a stint in the National Guard — were characterized most by his alcoholism and financial mismanagement.”

“His personal life, also characterized by his alcoholism, includes multiple sexual abuse allegations, three marriages, and his fathering of a child with one woman when he was married to another,” Wolff said. “His most substantial employment was as the co-host of a weekend television show on Fox News, where his boss, Roger Ailes, called him ‘Colonel Vodka’ because he talked so often about his National Guard service and then, reliably, passed out in a drunken stupor.”

But Wolff said Hegseth holds his current job not because of expertise, experience, and victories “but precisely because he is lacking them.” During Trump’s first administration, Wolff said the people running Trump’s military were clearly more intelligent than Trump, and they couldn’t hide their contempt for Trump’s stupidity.

“Almost every top-tier commander was struck by the determined ignorance of the commander-in-chief—and too frequently, they didn’t hide their feelings. Hence, Trump, in his second attempt at being president, hires ‘Colonel Vodka’ to run his Defense Department,” said Wolff, adding that Hegseth immediately set out to purge the Pentagon of people who were smarter than Trump.

“Hegseth understood that part of his job was to cleanse the Pentagon of layers of commanders who might believe that their expertise ought logically to provide a counterpoint to the president’s (and his Defense Secretary’s) lack of expertise,” said Wolff.

And now Wolff said the Pentagon is in trouble as munitions run low and a series of mistakes and bad decisions send Trump’s entirely voluntary war on Iran to creep into the November midterms.

“There isn’t anyone who believes Pete Hegseth is up to that job,” said Wolff, and insiders are pouring their opinions to the press.

GOP rep unravels live on CNN after getting wrecked by his own words

Rep. Buddy Carter had a difficult time speaking to CNN host Boris Sanchez on Thursday when it came to the economy, inflation and the war with Iran.

President Donald Trump announced out of the blue that he would send $5,000 checks to Americans if they voted for Republicans in November. It's an illegal move, but it's also one that even MAGA Republicans are complaining will make inflation so much worse while adding to the national debt.

Trump has consistently failed to deliver on all the promises he's made about sending Americans checks for money he says the U.S. is either saving from government cuts or earning from tariffs, said Business Insider.

Carter claimed that Americans have been "taxed enough," and that's why they need the checks. He then turned around and said that Republicans cut those taxes in the "One, Big Beautiful Bill."

Sanchez recalled Carter's comments back in 2022, when Americans were still dealing with the global pandemic and the economic crisis that hit as a result of it

"You argued that giving Americans $1,400 checks under President Biden's American Rescue Plan fueled 'waste and inflation.' You actually wrote a bill, The PAID Act, to take the leftover money from those pandemic funds and put it toward the debt. Now, Trump wants to give more than three times that amount. How is that consistent?" Sanchez asked. "How is this different from the money Biden was trying to give folks?"

Carter claimed it was different because the money "was the result of a pandemic that the Democrats and Fauci had pulled out and pulled the wool over our eyes. And there's no question about that."

He called it trying to compare "apples and oranges."

"We are trying to put more money in people's pockets in order to stimulate our economy. And this is why this is so important," said Carter, on why he supports the same move under Trump.

Sanchez was confused. "Pull the wool over our eyes?" he asked. "How exactly. The entire economy effectively shut down during the pandemic. The argument from the Trump administration and then the Biden administration was that these supplemental funds were going to help people. Right now, unemployment is 4 percent, inflation is creeping up, gas and diesel prices are near record levels. The president wants to throw about $1 trillion on top of that. Are you just supporting this idea of giving Americans money because the president is a Republican?"

Carter swore that he wasn't and that he fully understands that the U.S. is in $40 trillion in debt, but said that because "people are hurting" that "they need more money in their pockets and this is a way for us to get more money to them."

He maintained that it was still different because he said that Trump has created so much wealth.

Sanchez pushed, "Congressman, the argument you made was that inflation was worse under Biden and Harris because they gave Americans money, just supplemental funds. And now you're saying we should actually give them more than three times that amount, and that won't lead to inflation?"

Carter fumbled, promising that wasn't his take. He said people just need a stimulus because it would stimulate the economy.

After rattling off things Carter said Trump has done to help Americans have more money, Sanchez said it doesn't answer the question about why it was bad under Biden but good under Trump. Carter maintained it was "apples and oranges."

It got worse once they pivoted to talk about the Iran war. At one point Carter blamed Iran for attacking the USS Cole. On October 12, 2000, a group of suicide bombers exploded a small boat alongside the USS Cole. According to the FBI, their "investigation ultimately determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network planned and carried out the bombing. The investigation also revealed that the USS Cole bombing followed an unsuccessful attempt on January 3, 2000, to bomb another U.S. Navy ship, the USS The Sullivans."

- YouTube youtu.be

A massive earthquake is coming and the GOP has only one move left

When the GOP is taking a beating like this the party’s default response always comes down to one tactic, says New York Times columnist Lisa Lerer.

“As they took the stage at the party’s unusual midterm gathering in Dallas on Wednesday night, amid growing Republican anxiety about the midterm elections, speaker after speaker focused on what they characterized as an urgent threat to American life: a Democratic Party they claimed had veered beyond its traditional liberal principles into a dangerous, un-American ideology,” reports Lerer.

Democrats running for Congress were characterized as “evil,” or “communists and anarchists.” Speakers also claimed Democrats wanted to turn the nation into “a socialist hellscape.”

“I call it the Bolshevik Revolution in the Democratic Party,” said House majority leader Rep. Steve Scalise. “Let’s make sure that when we wake up the morning after Election Day we know we did everything we could to defeat socialism.”

Lerer said President Donald Trump has “long been a master of the politics of fear, regularly stoking anxiety about immigration and crime.”

“Now, as his party faces its most difficult political environment in years, the president and his supporters are attempting — once more — to channel fear into electoral victory,” Lerer said. “It’s a strategy that is both old and new, playing off the rise of the Democratic Socialists of America to stoke Cold War-era fears of communism and socialism.”

She added that by the time Trump took the stage Democratic extremism had been woven into “nearly every aspect of the six-hour program.”

Trump boasted about his tariff policy, lauded his work on the White House ballroom and vowed he would soon win the Iran war he started, but Lerer said Republican candidates appeared to have little to brag about and instead “made little mention of those issues.”

This comes at a time when the party appears to have veery little to talk about beyond the passage of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill, which has received mixed reviews from critics, and has left even red state legislatures fighting to fill holes Trump’s new budget gouged into safety net programs.

“Historically, the president’s party loses seats in the midterm elections. But for Mr. Trump, the political landscape looks bleaker than most,” reports Lerer. “Surveys indicate that, with the exception of Richard Nixon, Mr. Trump is the most unpopular second-term president at this stage in his tenure in the history of polling going back to the 1940s. On issues where he once was strong — like the economy, national security and immigration — Mr. Trump is now underwater. The wound has been largely self-inflicted, with his support weakened by the unpopularity of several of his signature policies, including tariffs, the war in Iran, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and various legacy renovation projects in Washington.”

Trump blames Dems when Fox News' Ingraham corners him on potential bribes

On Thursday, after President Donald Trump claimed he would send American adults checks for $5,000 if Republicans retained control of Congress after the midterms, he offered a confused explanation to Fox News as to why he couldn’t pay out the money “now.” According to Trump, it’s the Democrats’ fault. What’s more, he argued that the sky-high price tag of the payouts would be covered by a thoroughly debunked economic strategy.

“Why not give the money now?” asked Fox News host Laura Ingraham, a staunch Trump ally. “If you have the money, why not give it now?” While some conservatives have backed the plan, many have questioned how it would be funded and raised other practical concerns – like whether it amounts to socialism.

Trump dodged with a characteristically rambling response. “Because the Democrats can’t do it,” declared the president. “Because with them it’s negative growth. With us it’s so positive. We’re taking in $21 trillion. No country has ever taken in anywhere near that. It’s four or five times higher than the next one. All because of that beautiful word that you and I love more than most others. Tariffs.”

Blaming the Democrats is one of Trump’s most common tactics, but in this case it’s a particularly confusing attack. He and the GOP have been adamant that a Democratic victory in the midterms would result in socialism, but as even conservative commentators have noted, his $5,000 proposal is itself a form of redistributing wealth – in other words, socialism. According to National Review Senior Editor Charles Cooke, Trump’s move “joins socialists” and “embraces bribery.” The whole concept, said Cooke, is “morally, practically, and politically catastrophic.”

And Republicans aren’t the only ones pushing back against Trump’s plan: so is economic reality. Trump’s claim that the U.S. has collected $21 trillion from tariffs has no basis in fact. Quite the opposite. Trump’s tariffs were largely declared illegal by the Supreme Court, which forced him to pay the fees back to businesses, which in turn was a large contributor to the skyrocketing national deficit. What’s more, tariffs are paid for by the consumer, so even if Trump was paying out $5,000 checks using tariff money, it would essentially amount to Americans paying themselves.

As Cooke put it, “His pledge of $5,000 ‘dividends’ to voters if Republicans win is just preposterous.”

The 5 stages of MAGA grief —and why Trump's latest smells like 'bargaining'

In her 1969 book "On Death and Dying," Swiss psychologist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross famously detailed the "five stages of grief." Journalist David Rothkopf, in a Daily Beast opinion column, applies Kübler-Ross' concept to Donald Trump's second presidency — arguing that politically, the "desperate" Trump is going through those stages.

"The groundbreaking psychologist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, in her landmark book 'On Death and Dying,' refers to five stages patients go through as they come face to face with mortality: denial and isolation, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance," Rothkopf explains in the Daily Beast. "We're roughly at bargaining now. Natalie Harp handles the denial, while Walt Nauta and his handlers are in charge of the isolation — even if it means squirreling him away on secret aircraft. Nobody handles the anger, but there it is in the form of tantrums on Marine One and in the Oval Office. And the bargaining, well, that's the offer of the $5000 bribe he made yesterday."

The "bribe" that Rothkopf is referring to is Trump, at the unprecedented Republican Midterms Convention in Dallas, promising payments of $5000 to Americans if the GOP holds both branches of Congress on Tuesday, November 3.

"Before this campaign season is over," the Daily Beast columnist predicts, "there will be more. And then, for Trump, will come depression. Will he ever get to acceptance, or will he circle back to more anger, lashing out like Jimmy Cagney on his way to the chair in 'Angels with Dirty Faces' — or like Bruno Ganz in the bunker in 'Downfall?' We shall see. And we know, based on Trump's history and his performance in Dallas, that it won't be pretty."

During Trump's speech at the Dallas event, Rothkopf argues, his "desperation was so palpable … that he resembled nothing so much as a gangster in a 1930s movie being dragged by his armpits to the electric chair while pleading for his life."

"What was supposed to be a celebration of Trump turned into a pathetic public freakout," Rothkopf writes. "Naturally, while the perspiration and the agitation were apparent, Trump's pleas took the form we're most accustomed to hearing from him: fraudulent promises wrapped in lies inside a welter of threats and lunatic non-sequiturs. The most notable of those fraudulent promises was also the most desperate: Trump 'offered' to pay American voters $5000 each if they returned Republicans to the majority in Congress in November. Never mind that it was an overt bribe and therefore patently illegal. Never mind that it was an old con that he has tried before and that has never materialized — are you currently living in the lap of luxury thanks to your 'DOGE dividend?'"

The Daily Beast journalist adds, "Never mind that such a scheme would cost over $1 trillion dollars and add to our already incomprehensibly large debt."

According to Rothkopf, "con artist" Trump's $5000 "bribe" is "no different from" the "promises" he made with his Atlantic City casinos.

"But he also knows that his time is running out," Rothkopf writes. "That his lies are landing flat. That he is not going to be able to talk his way out of this final reckoning. Which is why he appears so shaky and frantic."

Ex-federal judge reveals Trump’s plan for 'catastrophic end' of democracy

On Thursday, a former federal judge detailed what he deemed “the final battle for America’s democracy,” laying out President Donald Trump’s plan to seize power on January 3, 2027. This is according to attorney and former U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, who warns that “Trump and his MAGA Republicans might bury our democracy once and for all.”

“Trump instigated a war against America’s democracy on January 6, 2021,” asserts Luttig. “Today, almost six years later, Donald Trump and his Republican congressional allies are even more determined to prosecute the president’s war against American democracy to its catastrophic end than they were on January 6, 2021. That catastrophic end could well come on January 3, 2027, when Trump and his Republican congressional allies wage the final battle in Trump’s determined war to corrupt America’s democracy and deliver a lasting political victory over the Democrats for his MAGA Republican Party.”

Over the course of his second term, says Luttig, Trump has taken steps to “seize control of the midterms” to ensure that Republicans retain a majority in the 120th Congress. As Trump himself declared in February, “The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over. We should take over the voting.’ ... The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” And the Republicans, notes Luttig, “have dutifully fallen in line … So unalterably subjugated to Trump is today’s Republican House that even a decisive victory for Democrats and a resounding repudiation of Trump and the MAGA Republicans at the polls in November will not guarantee that a Democratic majority-elect will be seated in the 120th Congress on January 3.”

The core of the plan involves a Republican plot to claim the election was rigged after they lose. According to Luttig, “This is how the crisis would unfold. The precursor of the crisis will come sometime before noon on January 3, when Speaker [Mike] Johnson (R-LA) removes current House Clerk Kevin McCumber and replaces him with a person loyal to Johnson and House Republicans who they know will refuse to list on the statutory roll of representatives-elect to the 120th Congress any Democrat-elect whom Johnson and the Republicans direct him or her not to list. Under Rule II, Clause 1 of the Rules of the House, the Speaker of the House has the unilateral power to remove the incumbent clerk, and then the power under Title 2 U.S.C. § 5501(a) to replace him temporarily with whomever he wishes until the House elects a successor. McCumber is a Republican appointed by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He is widely respected for his integrity and faithful adherence to the Constitution and is reputed to be unwilling to carry out orders he considers to be unconstitutional.”

“he constitutional crisis will begin, warns Luttig, when “sometime before the 120th Congress has been gaveled into session, the loyal temporary clerk refuses to list Democrat representatives-elect on the clerk’s roll of representatives-elect that determines who may participate in organizing the new Congress.” Such action will be met with lawsuits arguing that the clerk must perform its mandated action, which will work their way through appeals. “The next moment of constitutional crisis will come if and when,” says Luttig, the court orders the elected Democratic representatives be seated and the clerk refuses. “Judicial review of the House’s decision not to seat Democratic representatives-elect in the 120th Congress would take weeks, if not months, during which time the United States would be in the throes of a paralyzing constitutional crisis.”

From there, the matter would end up before the Supreme Court, which would be forced to answer “perhaps the most fundamental question under the Constitution: Is the United States of America a democracy, in which ‘We the People’ elect our representatives to the Congress and to the presidency, or is it not?” Should the Court decide to side with Republican claims of fraud, Luttig concludes, “two hundred and fifty years into the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the world, the Republican Party would finally meet the fate to which it has been destined since January 6, 2021, and cement its place in history as the most corrupt political party ever to emerge in the United States of America.”

Missouri Republicans threaten to impeach entire state Supreme Court

Republicans in the Missouri legislature are now threatening to impeach all of the state Supreme Court Justices if they hold Secretary of State Denny Hoskins in contempt of court.

Ahead of the state Supreme Court's hearing on Thursday over Hoskins' order to defy its ruling against changes to the electoral maps, a group of GOP lawmakers published a letter threatening the justices, Fox2NOW reported.

On Wednesday night, 14 members of the Missouri General Assembly signed a letter arguing that Hoskins shouldn't be held in contempt for violating his order because doing so would violate the separation of powers. If the justices do hold Hoskins in contempt, the GOP officials said they'd impeach the judges.

The letter claims, "the facts are not in dispute" over the court's Sept. 3 ruling.

The Republicans issuing the threat told Chief Justice W. Brent Powell, “Should Secretary of Hoskins be held in contempt, we will petition the Speaker of the House and legislative leadership to begin impeachment proceedings against the responsible members of this Court for willful neglect of duty, incompetency and misconduct under Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Missouri Constitution."

The U.S. Supreme Court already stepped in earlier this week to say it would not approve a temporary restraining order that would allow the GOP's maps to be used. Shortly before the Hoskins’ contempt hearing, the U.S. Supreme Court issued another ruling in which the justices rejected the Republican-backed maps intended to eliminate the Democratic district.

Democrats in the state responded to the GOP threat by saying that the letter was judicial tampering, a Class D felony, and that they fully intend to take those Republicans to court.

“Missourians forcefully responded to Republicans’ attempted power grabs last month by rejecting Amendments 4 and 5. They will react even worse to the GOP openly intimidating the Supreme Court as it considers whether the state’s highest election official abused his authority in defiance of the law," the Democrats said in a statement.

“This is how Democracies collapse,” said House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Democrat from Kansas City. “Corrupt officials defy the courts; the courts act to hold them responsible; corrupt officials eliminate the courts.”

The chief justice issued an ominous threat that Hoskins not leave town until they decided whether he'd be held in contempt of court.

Kansas City Star editorial board member Toriano Porter wrote on Wednesday that the state has fully fallen into a "constitutional crisis."

Chief justice delivers icy warning to Missouri official at contempt hearing

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, had a tough hearing before the Missouri state Supreme Court on Thursday, in which the state attorney general's office was forced to defend him against contempt charges for refusing to comply with a ruling they issued on the usage of congressional maps for the upcoming 2026 election.

Like many states, Missouri Republicans attempted to redraw lines to eliminate Democratic seats and help President Donald Trump keep as many GOP members of Congress as possible.

Ultimately, the hearing closed with Chief Justice W. Brent Powell telling the attorney general's office, "I would tell your client, the secretary of state, not to venture far from Jefferson City until this contempt ruling is decided."

It wasn't the only verbal smackdown delivered by the conservative state court.

Chuck Hatfield, counsel for People Not Politicians, the group that sued over the use of the 2026 maps, began the hearing by walking through the quickly changing legal situation, but Hoskins knowingly ignored the ruling and told local election officials not to follow the law. To him, that is worthy of a contempt ruling.

Missouri's AG's office lawyer claimed that Hoskins was in a difficult position because one court said one thing and another court said another. The reason for that, however, is that Hoskins went to the federal court when he didn't like the ruling from the state Supreme Court. He also asked the federal court to intervene to protect him from being held in contempt. The judge refused.

The justices didn't appear to buy into it, asking whether Hoskins fully understands that the law changing to the new maps, known as House Bill 1 (HB1), never went into effect. Chief Justice Powell, along with other justices, asked multiple times and in different ways whether Hoskins fully grasped that the maps were never legally changed. The AG office's lawyer appeared to play around with the admission, saying that Hoskins understands that now, but before, he was in a difficult position.

"We’re in a precarious situation," a frustrated Powell said. He urged them all to "get on the same page" and "find a way to save some of these elections so they are valid and we can sit the congressional delegation that our state is entitled to."

One justice cut in to say that they have a larger concern that the secretary of state could turn around and use maps that aren't law.

According to the attorney general's lawyer, Secretary of State Hoskins "acknowledges that this court's injunction is back in full force and effect" and is "evaluating next steps." In fact, the lawyer said multiple times that he hadn't had much time to confer with Hoskins since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling about an hour prior to the contempt hearing. So, Hoskins is still "evaluating the situation."

"I mean, it's just English," one justice said.

The justice explained that Hoskins could easily have waited until he had a final ruling on the matter as a whole, but instead, he chose the decision he wanted most and broadcast it to local officials, thereby causing more confusion. They asked what direction he had given to officials, and the AG's office said that there wasn't any.

A justice cut in to say that actually wasn't the case. The most recent message from the secretary of state's office was not to follow the law and the ruling by the state Supreme Court.

The hearing ended with Hoskins committing to telling the local officials that he lost in court and that they must comply with the 2022 maps.

As for his contempt, the justices said that he shouldn't leave town any time soon.

WSJ editor frets over 'scores of empty seats' at Trump speech

On Thursday, following President Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas the previous evening, an editor at the Wall Street Journal was left worrying over the fact that there were “scores of empty seats.” As the Journal’s Damian Paletta wrote, “If Trump can’t fill a Dallas arena, can he turn out a November vote?”

“There were scores of empty seats in the upper tiers of the American Airlines Center for President Trump’s keynote address at the Republican convention,” noted Paletta. “And there were plenty of empty seats in the lower sections too. It was a five-hour drumroll of speakers leading up to the president’s remarks, but those seats never filled. The floor of the arena was rocking. That, in essence, represents his base of supporters. But those upper tiers and some of the other sections represent the difference makers in November. And they didn’t show up.”

This is the perfect “nutshell” explanation for the uphill battle Trump and Republicans face heading into the midterms. According to Paletta, “They need to, more than metaphorically, fill those seats. ‘Pretend I’m on the ballot,’ Trump told the arena during his speech, acknowledging that midterm elections can prove difficult for the party that controls the White House.” In Paletta’s assessment, Trump’s speech had lots of energy and “laugh lines,” but wondered, "Can that be enough?” Trump may not think so, because as Paletta notes, he promised every American adult $5000 if Republicans stay in power.

But this “bribe,” as many are characterizing it, seems unlikely to turn a tide that is already decidedly against the Republicans. Trump’s historic unpopularity has many forecasting that the Democrats will win a majority in the House and maybe even the Senate, but as many conservatives have worried, the president seems strangely unconcerned. He was already dragging Republicans down due to his spiraling war with Iran and its resulting economic consequences, and has recently made a number of unpopular moves, like starting a trade war with Canada. This has resulted in a flurry of abysmal polls for the GOP, which have shown that many of the key voting blocs that carried Trump to office in 2024 – like independents, blue-collar workers, and the “reluctant right” who voted against Kamala Harris – have turned against Republicans. Now, polling shows that Democrats outpace Republicans in terms of midterm enthusiasm.

What’s more, Trump has sown division within his own party by endorsing scandal-plagued candidates like Ken Paxton in Texas, which many Republicans worry has cost them what was previously considered a safely red state. Trump has also been hesitant to open the $400 million war chest accumulated by his Super PAC MAGA Inc., and has repeatedly criticized his own party for its inability to pass his much-demanded voter ID law. According to Paletta, this tension within the GOP was evidenced by “the crowd’s awkward booing of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) halfway through Trump’s speech.”

Philly paper goes all-in against 'unstable' Fetterman in brutal takedown

In Pennsylvania politics, one of the burning questions surrounding Democratic Sen. John Fetterman is whether he will remain a Democrat, become an independent or join the Republican Party. Some Democratic lawmakers are defending Fetterman, arguing that he has been with them in key voters — while many liberals and progressives are openly expressing their frustration with him. And some of the frustration is coming from the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial board, which attacks him as an "embarrassment" in a blistering editorial.

"News flash: U.S. Sen. John Fetterman is still an embarrassment," the Inquirer writers argue. "The Pennsylvania Democrat enjoys one of the cushiest jobs in America, but he can't perform basic duties like voting, attending committee hearings, or meeting with constituents. Fetterman's disdain for the job — which comes with a $174,000 annual salary, free healthcare, and months off at taxpayer expense — has been well documented. He whined about missing a family beach trip during a lengthy debate last year over Donald Trump's costly and harmful One Big Beautiful Bill. Several major media outlets have chronicled the senator's dysfunction."

The Inquirer board continues, "In May 2025, New York Magazine detailed Fetterman's erratic behavior as staffers expressed concerns about his mental health since suffering a stroke. The New York Times quoted staffers who feared his mood swings and were warned not to get in the car if he is driving."

The Inquirer writers argue that a "devastating" Wall Street Journal article "underscored the senator's disregard for voters and his job."

"The Journal reported that Fetterman also stiffed three disabled veterans who traveled to Washington to meet with him, alleging he was ill, only to appear later that day on Fox News to talk about Israel and the war in Iran," according to the Inquirer board. "Apparently, teachers, healthcare officials, police, and veterans take a backseat while Fox News and the Israel-Hamas war command Fetterman's full attention."

Fetterman is up for reelection in 2028, and many pundits expect an aggressive Democratic primary challenge — in which case, they wonder, will be run as an independent or become a Republican?

The Inquirer is hoping that Fetterman won't seek a second term.

"Like the previous reports," the Inquirer board writes, "Fetterman called the Journal story a 'hit piece.' The sad truth is the reports from his own staffers paint a picture of a lazy, unengaged, and unstable senator who is not up to the job. Last year, this Editorial Board said Fetterman should either do his job effectively or step away. In the private sector, most workers who fail to perform their basic job duties get fired. Unless Fetterman resigns, voters will get their chance to oust him in 2028."

US will 'pay a price' for Trump’s historic fumble: defense experts

On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump promised his convention crowd that his war in Iran was coming to an end and implied it would be over soon. The military's recent actions paint a very different picture, and it'll come at a significant price.

"I think the war is gonna end immediately after the election." Trump then repeated, "I think the war will end immediately after the election."

The Atlantic's Nancy Youssef and Jonathan Lemire wrote on Thursday that Naval forces are positioning themselves for a sustained presence in the region.

According to military and defense experts, the Pentagon’s actions indicate that officials are preparing for a prolonged campaign in the Persian Gulf. Such deployments have been rare outside of the height of the Afghanistan and Iran Wars, the report explained.

Aircraft carriers and ships are like mobile airfields capable of launching sustained strikes without relying on vulnerable bases on the ground in nearby countries. The concern is that keeping them in the Gulf means the Navy has fewer ships available for missions elsewhere.

At the same time, a longer deployment ends "ripple effects" through the branches of service, the report said. It's taking away from the time allocated for maintenance and training. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expanded deployments to the Middle East, and it has become a PR disaster. Top leaders communicated their objections, said Walden. Then, for weeks, reporters covered the agony of soldiers and sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, who were on an extended deployment as food began to run out, and the ship arrived at port covered in rust. All of these small things add up to eroding "sailor retention and readiness," the report said.

“When you overuse an asset, eventually you are going to pay a price,” John Pendleton told The Atlantic. He previously directed the Government Accountability Office’s military readiness.

Admiral Daryl Caudle, the chief of naval operations, prepared the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group for the "tough times ahead," The Atlantic characterized. According to USNI News the attacks on U.S. bases have made it more difficult to shuttle sailors to the shore and keep them safe.

“If we know we’re going into harm’s way, we should be able to project with a little bit more fidelity how long the carrier and the strike group is going to stay on station,” Caudle said. “We do these extensions in little chunks, and the families don’t see any endpoint so they can plan their own lives—that creates a lot of stress for sailors.”

He added that he isn't "a big fan of extensions" but that "the enemy gets a vote" whether the military likes it or not.

Defense expert Bryan Clark said it has been clear to him that Trump intended to remain in the new war for a while after he "decided on the blockade as its main line of effort."

“But keeping carriers in the Arabian Gulf for responsive strikes will prevent sustaining carrier presence elsewhere. We may see U.S. influence erode in places like the Asia Pacific, like Japan and Taiwan," Clark added.

The experts painted the ordeal as a historic strategic fumble. Trump's effort to project strength may instead exhaust American forces, reduce flexibility and weaken the U.S.' ability to respond to threats elsewhere. Even if the war eventually ends, it may take the military years to recover from the damage.

US Supreme Court delivers another massive blow to Missouri Republicans

Missouri Republicans have already lost several of its lawsuits as part of the ongoing effort to change the congressional maps less than two months before the 2026 election. Now they're facing another blow.

"Law Dork" Chris Geidner posted on BlueSky that the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in again on the temporary restraining order a federal district court issued blocking changes to the electoral maps.

It has been a tough road for Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, who got a ruling from the state Supreme Court blocking the maps. He then ran to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, demanding that they step in. They did, and Hoskins decided that the district court superseded the state Supreme Court. A law school professor explained that that isn't how it works.

Hoskins on Tuesday emailed election officials, instructing them to break the law and use the map the court ruled against. His email prompted the state Supreme Court to ask why it shouldn't hold Hoskins in contempt of court for defying its ruling. Hoskins had until noon on Wednesday to submit an excuse to the Missouri high court, but instead, he begged the district court to step in and protect him.

In the early morning hours of Thursday, they released a ruling saying that they would not.

The only higher court that can overrule the state Supreme Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, and in its ruling, it made it clear that it deferred to the state Supreme Court.

Hoskins rushed to the U.S. Supreme Court again — but on Thursday morning, they struck it down once again.

There are no noted dissents from the Supreme Court justices.

It makes a definitive ruling that the maps used for the 2026 election will be the 2022 maps, not the new ones the GOP wants to use.

KSDK News political reporter Mark Maxwell, "The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the federal order that barred Missouri from using any map but the new one. That leaves the state court's ruling as the only one in effect. Election officials and Denny Hoskins are prohibited under court order from using HB1."

Missouri Solicitor General Louis Capozzi said that he submitted a brief to the federal judges and even gave a big thanks to President Donald Trump's Solicitor General John Sauer "and his team for filing a brief in our support on behalf of the United States."

Less than an hour later, the Supreme Court shut it all down.

Michigan State University Law School Professor Quinn Yeargain responded," This has been a stupid journey from beginning to end, and I hope that it culminates in sanctions for Hoskins and the rest of these disgusting ghouls."

Hoskins faces off against the Missouri Supreme Court in a hearing at 11 a.m. EST over his contempt charges.

Gold Star parents demand answers from Trump Pentagon over son’s death

On March 1, 2026, Cody Khork — a U.S. Army Reserve captain — was killed, along with five other troops, when an Iranian drone struck his position on a base in Kuwait. And Khork's family is still waiting for answers, with his mother telling CBS News that her "son died unnecessarily."

CBS News' Jonah Kaplan, in an article published the day before 9/11's 25th anniversary, reports, "Jim Khork, along with his wife, Stacey, sat down for an exclusive interview with CBS News to share more about their grief, but also, their frustrations about what they consider is a lack of accountability for military shortcomings ahead of the deadly attack. The Army confirmed to the Khorks and CBS News that its probe into the deadly Iranian attack was completed in early July, but they have yet to release it."

Jim Khork, his father, told CBS News, "I just never thought it would happen."

A U.S. Army spokesperson told CBS News that "patience" is needed, adding, "The U.S. Army is committed to transparency and respecting the privacy of our Gold Star Families. Out of respect for the primary next of kin, who are currently being scheduled for briefs on the official findings of the completed investigation, we will not comment on specific details, individual accounts, or leaked portions of the report at this time."

But Cody Khork's parents are publicly speaking out.

Kaplan reports, "The Khorks said Cody, as a force protection officer, had delivered repeated warnings to the unit's leader, Brig. Gen. Clint Barnes, about the risk that Iran would attack their location, which was roughly 65 miles from the border. Multiple sources told CBS News that Army intelligence warned as early as January that Iran would attack the Port of Shuaiba in a potential war. On March 1, while members of the unit holed up in a bunker amid air sirens, Cody's family said many survivors of the attack and other officers on the ground told them Cody advised Barnes that the unit should remain there, even amid periods of calm."

Jim Khork, recalling his son's death, told CBS News, "The general kept asking Cody to call an 'all clear.' A captain can only tell the general 'no' so many times … We can speak for our son now. He can't do it but we can."

Stacey Khork, Cody Khork's mother, believes that her son's death could have been prevented.

Stacey Khork told CBS News, "My son died unnecessarily. Yes, he died for my country. Yes, he was a patriot. Yes, he was a hero. I hate to use the word murder because it's strong, but if a loved one of yours was murdered, our justice system is built to have accountability and to have atonement for that and for the grief of the family."

'Fear of death': Trump’s 'psychological' reason for sabotaging the US

On Thursday, a prominent New York Times columnist warned that President Donald Trump’s dictator-like obsession with vanity construction projects poses a real danger to the country. According to Jamelle Bouie, the president’s behavior suggests that if the United States won’t celebrate him the way he desires, he will punish it by inflicting ever-greater harm and refusing to vacate the White House in 2029.

Donald Trump is obsessed with his ballroom,” says Bouie. “He's also obsessed with building this triumphal arch right by the Lincoln Memorial and across from Arlington National Cemetery. He's being sued for this, of course, by veterans' groups saying that it is harming their ability to enjoy Arlington National Cemetery, where some of the veterans in question hope to be buried. But construction has already begun and there's a pretty good chance that it will make significant headway.”

According to Bouie, “Trump really sees the arch as the monument to himself, the great thing that will cement his legacy as president of the United States and his legacy in Washington, D.C. He feels that by constructing the arch and constructing the ballroom, there will be a permanent ode to his place in American history.” But as Bouie notes, there is no tradition of presidents building monuments to themselves in the United States. Rather in the U.S., you get a monument if the public decides you deserve one, and then it happens by vote of Congress. Trump’s approach, however, is “reminiscent of what you see in dictatorships or authoritarian countries and the like where cults of personality build monuments to the leader.”

While it’s clear that Trump “idolizes and envies” such dictators, says Bouie, “I think there's something else going on here, too, and that is that Donald Trump has a profound and debilitating fear of death.” While death is frightening for most people, notes Bouie, “Trump in particular – who is a purely egotistical being, who in a lot of ways does not really conceptualize the existence of other minds, who ties his self-worth to being known – for Trump in particular, dying constitutes the greatest single bit of existential terror because it constitutes the potential, the possibility that he'll be forgotten. And if there's one thing Donald Trump cannot tolerate, if there is one thing that constitutes the single largest blow to his ego, it is being forgotten.”

In that context, asserts Bouie, “these monuments, this arch, this ballroom, represent his effort to force himself onto historical memory, and to be remembered as he would like to remember himself: as a grand, titanic figure of American history.” Reporters often describe this behavior in terms of presidential legacy, but according to Bouie, “it's not that. It's something more elemental and more psychological than that.” What’s more, says Bouie, it’s “worrisome.”

According to Bouie, Trump's presidency should be considered a “family annihilator” presidency – a term given to those who murder multiple family members and often themselves. His 2024 election, says Bouie, was the beginning of a “revenge tour against the American people themselves for rejecting him in 2020,” and “family annihilator” fits that impulse: the “self-conscious destruction and self-destruction to vindicate one's ego.” And as Bouie warns, he fears that “given the president's desire for a legacy, given his solipsism, given his penchant for destroying things he cannot have, as we get closer to 2028 and 2029, especially if Democrats win Congress in the fall,” “this presidency's going to become all the more self-destructive. And that the energy of the administration is going to turn even more towards just inflicting destruction on the American people, on Washington D.C., on the country.”

Bouie says his greatest concern involves 2029. While he’s less worried that Trump will steal the midterms, as he at this point appears to be shrugging them off, “we have no evidence that Trump is prepared to leave office peacefully. He had one chance to do it before and he refused. And all of our available evidence tells us that Trump will cause a tremendous amount of destruction before he is forced out.” With this in mind, Bouie concludes on a grim note, warning, “ I think it's going to be pretty ugly. How ugly? I don't know. But pretty ugly.”

Trump rants expose his 'brain rot in real time': ex-White House official

Conservative Sarah Matthews went from serving as deputy press secretary in the first Trump administration to becoming a full-fledged Never Trumper and giving Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris an enthusiastic endorsement in 2024. This week, Matthews has a lot to say about Trump's social media rants, arguing that the type of content he posts shows the severity of his mental decline.

The Daily Beast's Ewan Palmer notes, "A former close aide to President Donald Trump has said the 80-year-old's unhinged Truth Social posts show he is losing touch with reality. Sarah Matthews, a White House deputy press secretary during Trump's first term, suggested that it is not only the sheer amount of AI-generated slop the president shares online that is worrying, but also, the sort of content he posts. This includes a particularly frantic posting spree on Sunday, when Trump shared dozens of deranged Truth Social updates, including one showing him with an army of robots launching a nuclear war on Earth from outer space, and another image of him threatening to beat Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney with a hockey stick."

During his first presidency, Trump did a lot of ranting on X (Twitter at the time). But according to Matthews, his social media posts are much worse now.

Matthews told the New York Times, "He floods the zone with so much of it that we've become numb to just how bizarre it is. An 80-year-old president is spending a ridiculous amount of time consuming and reposting endless AI fan fiction portraying him as the biggest, strongest, and most important person alive. It feels like we're genuinely watching his brain rot in real time."

Palmer points out that Trump's posts often "promote how he portrays himself in his head or how he wants to be seen" — for example, an "AI-generated image showing the U.S. military attacking Iran's oil hub of Kharg Island" as well as an image of "Trump smashing a chunk of land depicting Iran with a comically large hammer bearing the American flag on its head."

"It is not just Matthews — who resigned from the White House in the wake of the January 6 attack in 2021 and has since turned into a vocal Trump critic — who has expressed concerns about the president's social media addiction," Palmer observes. "There have been multiple demands to remove Trump from office via the 25th Amendment over suggestions that his Truth Social activity shows he is unfit for office. Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree of Maine made such a call while sharing a video showing a stream of worrying content from Trump's Truth Social account on Sunday."

Pingree, in a September 6 post on X, wrote, "This is truly unhinged behavior from the president of the United States. And I don't want to hear 'oh, it's just Trump being Trump' or that he's 'trolling.' Enough. None of this is normal or okay. Republicans cannot keep shrugging this off. Congress, the Cabinet, and everyone around him has a responsibility to stop enabling this dangerous behavior and start asking whether he is fit to hold this office."

Trump’s coalition of voters in Texas is 'in shambles'

President Donald Trump has been slowly losing the key coalition of voters he built for his 2024 success, including Latino voters, particularly in Texas. It comes at a difficult time, with Trump's hand-picked Senate candidate in a politically perilous position as the Nov. 3 election nears.

The Cook Political Report revealed that, in a new survey conducted in partnership with TelevisaUnivision, Democratic candidates in Texas are leading their Republican opponents by a 2-1 margin.

This comes after Trump pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their congressional district lines to redistribute Republican voters from very safe districts to those that are closer and less secure. The problem is that Trump and the Texas GOP were going off of Trump voters in 2024. Now that those supporters are abandoning him in droves, there might be more Democratic pick-up opportunities in Texas.

Publisher Amy Walter explained in a post on X that the 2024 coalition is "in shambles. Almost 1 in 5 Trump ‘24 voters now disapprove of POTUS. Talarico leads Paxton by 33. In Rio Grande Valley, Democrats lead [the] generic [ballot] by 14." The generic ballot is when pollsters ask, regardless of the candidate, which party one supports.

The report also cautioned that Latino voters are well aware that they play a big role in the state's elections.

"Seven in ten said they think Hispanics in the state have a lot or some political influence, including 41 percent who said they have 'real political power' in Texas," the report said. "Moreover, two-thirds said they’d like candidates to conduct outreach in the Hispanic community in Spanish, and 69 percent said they believe candidates signal that they 'want to earn my vote' when they appear on Spanish-language media."

In 2024, Trump carried Latino voters by 10 percent and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) won them by 3 percent. This year, Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico is winning Hispanic voters with 63 percent of the vote. His GOP opponent only has about 30 percent of those voters. It also includes 73 percent of self-described independent voters who support Talarico.

The governor's race is only slightly better for long-time leader Greg Abbott. In 2022, he scored 40 percent with Hispanic voters. Now, his Democratic opponent Rep. Gina Hinojosa, leads with Hispanic voters, 60 percent to 33 percent.

The shift is coming as a result of Trump's mistakes in the first two years of his second term. He's lost 18 percent of his Hispanic base since 2024. While attention is focused on the Senate race, where 19 percent of Hispanic Trump voters support Talarico over Paxton, the congressional races are worse. According to the Cook numbers, 22 percent of Hispanic Trump voters don't support Republican House candidates when asked which party they'd vote for.

Hidden evidence and the unsolved mystery of the FBI's 9/11 Saudi suspects

Within a few days of the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001, FBI agents identified an important possible suspect: a middle-aged Saudi graduate student who provided crucial help to two of the al-Qaida hijackers as they settled in San Diego early the year before.

The Saudi, Omar al-Bayoumi, had since moved to England, and he was arrested there at the FBI’s request. A police search of his home and office yielded a trove of evidence that quickly deepened investigators’ suspicions about Bayoumi and his dealings with the terrorists. But what happened to much of that evidence after it was delivered to the FBI remains a mystery.

Bayoumi was questioned and released by British police and later returned to Saudi Arabia. For years thereafter, the FBI would insist he wasn’t really a suspect at all — that Bayoumi had met the hijackers by chance, had helped them unwittingly and seemed nothing like a militant Islamist.

As the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is marked Friday, questions about how the FBI handled Bayoumi’s case have only grown, driven in part by evidence that was seized from him in 2001 but not made public for years or even shared with field agents who sought to investigate his role.

That evidence and other FBI information, now filed in a federal lawsuit against the Saudi government by victims of the attacks, has undercut both Bayoumi’s claims of innocence and the FBI’s profile of him as a genial, pro-American civil servant. While he was living publicly as a student, it shows, Bayoumi worked closely with Saudi religious officials, operated as a Saudi intelligence asset and collaborated with several clerics who would later emerge as militant Islamists tied to al-Qaida.

This week, representatives of the 9/11 families are again demanding an end to what they have called the Justice Department’s silence about what happened to the Bayoumi evidence and why he and other Saudis were not more aggressively pursued. The families have also questioned whether the Trump administration — which has strengthened U.S. diplomatic and business ties to the Saudi royal family — is committed to pursuing the truth about the possible role of Saudi officials.

“We still have not been given the full picture of what happened,” said Kathleen Zapata, whose father, Joseph Coppo, was killed in the World Trade Center. “Why are we having to fight against our own government simply to get answers about the most horrible attack ever on American soil?”

A White House spokesperson said, “President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history, and his team is working diligently on identifying records that are responsive to these families’ request.” A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment, noting that many of the officials involved in the early 9/11 investigation no longer work for the government.

While former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are expected to attend a ceremony at the 9/11 memorial in New York, President Donald Trump has said he will commemorate the anniversary separately at the Pentagon.

The Saudi government has long denied any role in the attacks, often citing FBI and CIA statements that the royal family was an enemy of al-Qaida and its Saudi-born leader, Osama bin Laden. A spokesperson for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return messages asking for comment, including a request to speak to Bayoumi.

From San Diego to Dulles International Airport

A ProPublica examination of how the FBI handled the Bayoumi evidence shows that questions surrounding the Saudi connections to the 9/11 plot date to Jan. 15, 2000, when the first two hijackers landed in Los Angeles on a flight from Bangkok.

The CIA had followed the two men, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they met with other Qaida operatives in Malaysia days before. But the agency said it lost track of them when they flew to Thailand and then entered the United States using their real names and Saudi passports. (The CIA did not inform the FBI of their presence in the United States until Aug. 24, 2001, according to the report of the 9/11 Commission.)

Unlike several Qaida operatives who led the hijacking teams, Mihdhar and Hazmi spoke no English and knew almost nothing of life in a Western society. The mastermind of the plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, told CIA interrogators he advised them to seek help from Muslim communities in California, according to the 9/11 Commission. But the commission and many U.S. terrorism experts expressed skepticism that he would deploy such ill-equipped operatives without providing them with any contacts in the United States.

Bayoumi claimed his meeting with the hijackers was happenstance. After driving from San Diego on Feb. 1, 2000, he said, he had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and then went to a nearby halal cafe. There, he later told the FBI, he overheard Hazmi and Mihdhar speaking Gulf-accented Arabic and introduced himself. Seeking to be hospitable, he said, he told them they might want to try San Diego.

Shortly after the men stepped off a bus there three days later, Bayoumi said, he happened to run into them again at a local mosque. The next day, he arranged for them to rent an apartment in the building where he lived with his family, co-signed their lease and set up a bank account for them, briefly loaning them about $1,500 for the deposit. He went on to introduce them to more than two dozen local men who helped them in various ways.

The FBI had already looked closely at Bayoumi, launching a preliminary investigation in 1998 after neighbors reported what they said were suspicious gatherings of young Arab men at his apartment. That inquiry determined that Bayoumi, who had worked for the Saudi civil aviation ministry, was still receiving a generous government stipend through an aviation company for which he did no work. The investigation found no criminal activity, however, and it was closed after six months, officials said.

Barely a week after the 9/11 attacks, the FBI asked the British authorities to arrest Bayoumi in Birmingham, England, where he had begun graduate business studies at Aston University.

David Campbell, then a young terrorism investigator, was dispatched from London by the Metropolitan Police Service, which is responsible for counterterrorism efforts across Britain. He recalled flying back down the highway in a special police vehicle with his handcuffed prisoner in the back seat, the sirens blaring. “They’d been told they had one of the 9/11 terrorists,” he said in an interview.

The FBI sent three agents from the United States to assist with Bayoumi’s interrogation at the Paddington Green police station in Central London. They were joined by a senior FBI attache, Joseph Hummell, who worked closely with the police service’s Anti-Terrorist Branch, known as SO13.

But despite those close contacts and the FBI’s considerable information about Bayoumi, very little of it was shared with Campbell and the Birmingham detective who joined him in questioning the suspect.

“We were really in the dark,” Campbell recalled. “They never even mentioned that he had been under investigation by the FBI in San Diego in 1998.”

Nor, Campbell said, were the interrogators briefed about the materials that had just been taken from Bayoumi’s Birmingham home and office, which included boxes of papers, correspondence, photographs, computer disks, videotapes and an address book. Yet some of those items had been immediately flagged as important, records show.

Among them was a diagram in Bayoumi’s handwriting that appeared to calculate the trajectory of an airplane to a point on the horizon. Another was a video of Bayoumi touring and describing the U.S. Capitol, a building that had been identified by U.S. investigators as a prospective al-Qaida target.

After questioning Bayoumi for almost a week, Campbell said, he and the Birmingham detective joined two senior SO13 officers on a conference call with Justice Department attorneys in the United States. The two interrogators were given a brief opportunity to express their view that Bayoumi’s account seemed deeply suspicious and full of falsehoods, Campbell said.

It didn’t seem to matter. The U.S. officials, who included lawyers in Washington and federal prosecutors in New York, concluded quickly that they did not have sufficient evidence to seek Bayoumi’s extradition.

“When the call ended, we just looked at each other in complete disbelief,” Campbell recalled.

FBI documents declassified in response to a 2021 executive order by Biden give a partial answer to what happened to the Bayoumi evidence.

One memorandum on Oct. 11, 2001, notes that New Scotland Yard, as the Metropolitan Police Service was often called, had provided the FBI attache’s office with “copies of all recovered exhibits, including mirror images of all computers.” A complete copy of the trove was also sent via Federal Express to the FBI’s New York Field Office, the memo noted.

By then, however, the agency’s new director, Robert Mueller, had taken the unusual step of ordering that the 9/11 case be run out of its Washington headquarters. The Penttbomteam, as it became known in the FBI’s clunky acronym for Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing, mobilized thousands of FBI agents and analysts around the world.

One group focused on the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, tracing the path of Hazmi and Mihdhar from Southern California to Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they abandoned a used Toyota Corolla registered to one of their former addresses in San Diego.

How the headquarters team translated and analyzed the materials obtained from Bayoumi in Britain is unclear. But the team did not appear to share the evidence widely. In another memo, dated May 15, 2002, the San Diego FBI office noted that it was asked to review only five of the more than 80 VHS tapes seized from Bayoumi in Birmingham. Two of those were duplicates and included footage of a paintball fight and a family trip to Sea World. “Nothing of significant investigative/evidential value has been discovered,” the memo stated.

Although Bayoumi’s friends and associates helped the hijackers with everything from part-time jobs to flying lessons (they flunked out because their English was so poor), FBI leaders dismissed the idea that any of the people who helped them knew they were Qaida operatives sent on a still-evolving terrorist mission.

“As far as we know, they contacted no known terrorist sympathizers in the United States,” Mueller told a joint panel of the Senate and House intelligence committees in September 2002. “To this day, we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot.”

The FBI’s more conclusive account of its Penttbom findings came before the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. The young agent leading the Flight 77 investigation team, Jacqueline Maguire, echoed Mueller’s earlier testimony, saying in 2004 that Bayoumi’s meeting with the California hijackers had been “a random encounter” and that he had helped them without knowing their true aim. Maguire also said the FBI had no indication the hijackers had initially sought out another figure who raised suspicions, Fahad al-Thumairy, the imam of the Saudi-built King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California.

Michael Jacobson, a former State Department counterterrorism official who was a key commission investigator, said he knew some FBI agents in California were convinced that Bayoumi and Thumairy had helped the hijackers deliberately. But Maguire and her boss, Mary Galligan, who oversaw the Penttbom team, “were both consistently pushing back hard on any narrative of a support network,” Jacobson said in an interview.

Maguire and Galligan declined to comment.

When investigators from the 9/11 Commission interviewed Bayoumi and Thumairy in Saudi Arabia in 2003, Maguire — who had already interviewed the two Saudis for the FBI months earlier — joined them as an official escort. The interviews, which were managed by Saudi intelligence officials, were notable for Bayoumi’s efforts to ingratiate himself and Thumairy’s seemingly brazen lies, former officials said. Thumairy said he had never met the hijackers and did not even know Bayoumi, despite telephone records showing numerous calls between them. The Saudi Embassy did not respond to a request to speak to Thumairy.

In its final report, the commission said it could not confirm that Thumairy helped the two terrorists but found it was “fairly certain that Hazmi and Mihdhar spent time at the King Fahd mosque and made some acquaintances there.”

Echoing the FBI’s assessment, the commission described Bayoumi as “a devout Muslim, obliging and gregarious,” and found no evidence he “believed in violent extremism or knowingly aided extremist groups.” It would take years before those conclusions were forcefully challenged.

Daniel Gonzalez, a San Diego FBI agent who had been looking at Hazmi and Mihdhar’s circle since the day after the attacks, became the case agent for Operation Encore, a “subfile” or follow-on inquiry to the original 9/11 case. But while he and other agents made significant breakthroughs, former officials said, they faced constant skepticism from FBI headquarters and were sometimes blocked outright in their efforts to pursue the case.

In 2007, in an interview with a key source in Jordan, Gonzalez learned of two other important witnesses in Los Angeles, young Muslim immigrants who had also helped the hijackers. The two later confirmed the hijackers had gone to the King Fahd Mosque after arriving in Los Angeles and met repeatedly with Thumairy. One of the men said Thumairy also arranged for the hijackers to be driven to their first meeting with Bayoumi at the halal cafe — undercutting Bayoumi’s claim that he met them by chance.

For years, Encore agents said, they continued to press for more of the materials seized from Bayoumi in Britain. At one point, Gonzalez got a phone call from Washington asking if he wanted some old Penttbom evidence that was about to be destroyed. The materials — copies of some of Bayoumi’s long-sought papers, including the suspicious flight diagram — stunned the Encore team, Gonzalez said.

In June 2012, a small group of Encore investigators and analysts flew to London to try to review the Bayoumi search evidence more thoroughly. According to three former officials familiar with the trip, they viewed dozens of hours of videotapes and took new copies of much of the Metropolitan Police material.

For reasons that remain unclear, however, the team either did not see or did not focus on a few videotapes that would later become evidence in the 9/11 families’ lawsuit, including the tape of Bayoumi at the U.S. Capitol. While some terrorism experts have interpreted the recording as Bayoumi’s effort to “case” the site for a possible attack, lawyers for the Saudi government described it as a tourist video.

The Bayoumi videos also included extensive footage of two Saudi religious officials who not long before had commanded attention from both the FBI and CIA. The two men, Adel al-Sadhan and Mutaeb al-Sudairy, were emissaries of the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs who had traced what intelligence officials saw as a strikingly suspicious path around the United States. The Saudi Embassy did not respond to a request to speak to the men.

In addition to traveling to Washington, D.C., with Bayoumi, the two clerics visited Los Angeles and San Diego a year before the hijackers and stayed at one of the homes where Hazmi and Mihdhar later lived. Sudairy also spent several months living in Columbia, Missouri, with an American al-Qaida member, Ziyad Khaleel, who provided Osama bin Laden with the satellite phone that FBI officials said he used to orchestrate the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Just before and after the hijackers arrived in San Diego, telephone records show, Bayoumi also made a series of calls to Sudairy in Washington, Thumairy in Los Angeles and Anwar al-Aulaqi, a Yemeni American cleric. Aulaqi, who ran a San Diego mosque that Bayoumi had funded through Saudi donations, was described by FBI witnesses as a spiritual adviser to Hazmi and Mihdhar. Aulaqi later emerged as an important al-Qaida leader before he was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011.

Unanswered Questions

In 2014 and 2015, a panel of security experts was assembled to review the FBI’s implementation of reforms called for by the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Review Commission, as the second panel was called, was also tasked with looking again at questions about the 9/11 plot that remained unanswered.

Maguire, the FBI’s primary liaison to the review panel, again disputed suspicions about Bayoumi. “He came here for school and everything seems accidental with Bayoumi,” the commission was told in a 2014 briefing led by Maguire.

The review panel concluded there was not enough new information to revise the 9/11 Commission’s finding that there was no “witting assistance” to the hijackers. But Tim Roemer — a Democratic former congressman from Indiana who served on the 2002 joint intelligence inquiry, the 9/11 Commission and the Review Commission — made a point of pressing for further investigation into the Saudi question. He was struck that Maguire and other FBI officials were still pushing back.

“There was consistent feedback from some levels of the FBI that simply wanted to close the case and claim that what Bayoumi did was purely coincidence and somehow accidental,” Roemer said.

Roemer insisted that the Review Commission formally recommend that the FBI continue to examine the Saudi issue. But shortly after it did so, officials at FBI headquarters renewed their pressure to shut down Operation Encore. In 2016, the head of the agency’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces finally relented, reassigning the case and disbanding the team that had been investigating it for years.

The next year, a pair of memorandums sent by the FBI’s Washington field office confirmed something that the Encore agents had long suspected: Between the late 1990s and Sept. 11, 2001, Bayoumi was paid a monthly stipend as a co-optee, or part-time agent, of the Saudi intelligence services.

By then, Gonzalez had retired. The Encore investigators who remained were working new jobs. Along with other documents from the FBI investigation, the memos were initially withheld from the 9/11 families by the Justice Department, which classified them as state secrets during Trump’s first term. The Encore agents saw the memos for the first time when they were finally made public in 2022 under Biden’s executive order.

“Somebody needs to explain to the American people why we didn’t see this information before,” Gonzalez said in an interview.

Trump’s Canada meltdown is becoming a nightmare for the GOP

Vox’s Zack Beauchamp has walked through the bizarre history of President Donald Trump’s obsession with tariffs and how the U.S. got to the point where there's now a major trade war with Canada.

Speaking to The New Republic's Greg Sargent for the Thursday "Daily Blast," Beauchamp explained that there are normal trade disputes between countries, but what Trump has done with Canada smells like something different.

"To Trump, the mere fact that we’re trading with Canada is itself an inherently disastrous and bad thing," Sargent said.

Beauchamp said that it appears Trump appears to completely misunderstand basic information about global trade.

"Like he thinks that when you’re importing from a country, you’re giving them money," he said. "You’re just giving them money, right? And then that money doesn’t come back to you in any way, it doesn’t benefit the people in your country from getting those goods. They aren’t helping anything."

But the reality, he explained, is like saying when one goes to the grocery store they're leaving $200 behind. Like trade, that's not how grocery stores work. You're buying things with that $200. "They are giving you stuff," he said.

"Whereas Trump sees it as a form of extraction. He seems to think that trade deficits mean you’re losing, which is also not how it works," said Beauchamp.

Trade is nothing more than what is a domestic economy, but on a global scale, he said. People are exchanging goods and services for money.

"I think, that the American public does not want what Trump is doing with trade policy. What they take from that, right — just sticking with the specific issue of trade, rather than the sort of broader ideological narrative around MAGA — that is a very open question, right?" Beauchamp said.

The lesson, he explained, "is certainly not that the right thing to do all along was to follow Trump’s impulse on these issues. I think the evidence is weak that this was ever an especially important issue in Trump’s wheelhouse that caused him to win a lot. It’s very weak, I think."

Meanwhile, the trade war is creating a lot of problems for Republicans who don't need another battle a little over 50 days before an election.

Trump's tariffs on Canada began on Tuesday, prompting several Republicans to speak out against Trump publicly. These exposed Republicans are now being forced to defend Trump while his policy threatens jobs in their states. Sen. Roger Marshall (R) in Kansas, and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) are both trying to keep jobs in their respective states. Trump's trade war with Canada prompted him to target a Canadian manufacturing plant in Kansas, which employs 1,500 people. Losing those jobs would make it clear that Marshall's fidelity to Trump hasn't benefited residents. The same is true in Maine, which relies heavily on Canada for tourism.

GOP strategists have warned that tariffs on Canadian goods is already hitting Americans. CNN polling cited in the interview found that 64 percent of Michigan voters and 70 percent of Maine voters believe the tariffs are bad for their states. Working-class voters in both states also opposed the tariffs by large margins.

Ultimately, the trade war continues to show that the "America First" promises to his MAGA base are collapsing under the weight of his trade war. Sargent claims it's because all of these decisions are based on the president's personal whims, not on facts.

Both suggest that these conflicts could ultimately create an opening for Democrats to tout the benefits of economic interdependence and challenge Trump's zero-sum worldview. Beauchamp said that the key will be good storytellers who can connect these dots.


CIA officials sound alarm as Trump chief pushes agency to breaking point

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was established when Democratic President Harry S. Truman signed into law the National Security Act of 1947. The agency turns 79 this year. But former CIA officials John Sipher and Julia Curlee voice strong concerns about the agency's future in a scathing article for the conservative website The Bulwark.

Sipher and Curlee are vehemently critical of CIA leader John Ratcliffe in their piece, arguing that his loyalty is not to the agency's wellbeing, but to President Donald Trump.

"A CIA director must be measured against the office's demands: independence, intellectual honesty, and willingness to tell a president what he does not want to hear," the former CIA officials write. "We spent decades at the agency — one running clandestine operations abroad, the other writing analysis and briefing presidents, including this one. We took the same oath as Ratcliffe: to defend the Constitution, not a president's agenda or grievances. By that standard, John Ratcliffe is failing."

Sipher and Curlee continue, "By undermining the independence and credibility of an apolitical intelligence service, Ratcliffe is doing serious damage to national security. He has repeatedly used the agency's authority and prestige to validate President Trump's conspiracy theories: that Russia's help in 2016 was a Democratic 'hoax,' and that China 'stole' the election in 2020. His misuse of declassification dates to 2020, when, as director of national intelligence, he publicly released unverified Russian intelligence about Hillary Clinton, even conceding that it might 'reflect exaggeration or fabrication.'"

The former CIA officials note that Ratcliffe is often described as "the adult in the room" when it comes to Trump appointees. But they warn that Ratcliffe's "politicization" of the CIA serves Trump, not the agency itself.

"Ratcliffe's politicization … goes far beyond selective and misleading declassification," according to Sipher and Curlee. "On his watch, a serving CIA officer was publicly named and pushed out, other intelligence officials were fired for speaking truth to power, and decade-old analysis was retracted because the administration didn't like the topics. The silences are as telling as the statements. In January, then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stood beside FBI agents seizing 2020 ballots in Fulton County, Georgia. Ratcliffe said nothing. When Gabbard declassified a disputed report on the Russia investigation, he volunteered that he 'strongly supports the public release.'"

Sipher and Curlee continue, "Worse, he has allowed the White House to misuse the CIA to tell Americans their votes were stolen. It is the latest blow to the post-Church Committee wall between the agency and domestic politics, and Congress has mostly just watched."

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.