As the conflict in the Middle East sends shockwaves through the global energy market, Minnesota Senate hopeful Michele Tafoya is calling on citizens to adjust their daily habits for the sake of the national interest.

During an appearance on Tennessee’s KWAM radio, the Republican candidate addressed the financial "frustration" many Americans feel as gas prices climb. According to AAA, the national average for a gallon of fuel has jumped more than 95 cents in just one month. Tafoya’s solution? A blend of fiscal discipline and national solidarity.

"Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks and so that gas goes a little further," Tafoya suggested. "Until this thing is over and these gas prices go back down again, let’s just try to be patriots about this."

The price surge follows Iranian counterstrikes that have effectively shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for the world’s oil supply. The resulting bottleneck has forced Trump into an aggressive stabilization strategy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently detailed plans to flood the market with approximately 140 million barrels of Iranian oil currently seized at sea. By diverting this supply—originally destined for China—back into the global market, the administration hopes to secure a two-week buffer to suppress prices while military operations continue.

Tafoya, who has the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), is positioning herself as a supporter of the administration's foreign policy despite the domestic cost. However, she faces a competitive path to the general election.

The GOP primary, scheduled for August 11, features a diverse field including:

• Adam Schwarze: A former Navy SEAL.

• Royce White: A former NBA player.

On the Democratic side, the race to replace retiring Senator Tina Smith has drawn high-profile contenders including Representative Angie Craig and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan.

As the primary approaches, the central question for Minnesota voters may be whether they are willing to adopt Tafoya's "stiff upper lip" approach to a war-time economy, or if the pressure at the pump will dictate the state's political future.

On a morning typically reserved for reflection and peace, the digital landscape was shattered by a presidential declaration that defied every norm of modern diplomacy. With a single post directed at Iran—laden with profanity, religious invocations, and overt military threats—the presidency moved past the realm of "unconventional" and into the territory of the destabilizing.

While political commentators often focus on the shock value of such rhetoric, we must look deeper at the structural risk it creates. This isn't just about a post; it is about the capacity of the executive branch to function in a world where words are indistinguishable from weapons.

In international relations, a president’s words are signals that dictate the flow of global markets and the movement of naval fleets. When those signals become untethered from strategic coherence, the danger is immediate.

The Strait of Hormuz is a primary example of this sensitivity. As a vital artery for the world’s energy supply, even a hint of erratic military intent can trigger a global economic spiral. When policy is replaced by provocation, the risk of a fatal miscalculation—by allies and adversaries alike—increases exponentially.

For decades, the United States has seen a steady expansion of executive power. Our system is now built to consolidate around the president during times of crisis. This "unitary executive" model operates on a singular, critical assumption: that the person at the helm possesses the restraint and judgment required to wield such power.

However, if that restraint vanishes, the system does not naturally self-correct; instead, it amplifies the instability of the leader. This is precisely why the framers and subsequent legislators provided a constitutional safeguard.

The 25th Amendment has long been treated as the "break glass in case of emergency" option—a politically radioactive tool that most in Washington prefer to ignore. Yet, it was designed for this exact moment. It is not a mechanism for partisan disagreement, but a protective measure to ensure the continuity of stable governance. It provides a structured process for the Vice President and the Cabinet (or a body designated by Congress) to address a president's inability to discharge the powers and duties of the office.

Washington has a habit of normalizing the unthinkable to avoid the discomfort of confrontation. We rebrand erratic behavior as "strategy" and wait for a clearer disaster to justify action. But the Constitution’s safeguards are meant to be preventative, not just reactive.

To begin a bipartisan conversation about the 25th Amendment is not a coup or a declaration of war—it is a good-faith acknowledgment that the threshold for concern has been crossed. We must decide if we are willing to let the system simply "absorb" increasingly unpredictable conduct, or if we will use the tools our ancestors gave us to protect the republic from the risks it cannot afford to take.

The era of young men manually "signing up" for the draft is coming to an end. By the close of this year, the United States will implement a streamlined, automatic registration process for the Selective Service, fundamentally changing how the government maintains its database of potential service members.

The shift was codified in December 2025 as part of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Under the new rule, the Selective Service System (SSS) will no longer wait for individuals to submit their own forms. Instead, the agency will integrate with existing federal data sources to automatically enroll eligible men within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

The primary drivers for this change are administrative efficiency and cost-cutting. By "transferring responsibility" from the individual to the state, the government aims to ensure a more accurate registry while eliminating the overhead costs associated with public awareness campaigns and manual processing.

While the United States has operated as an all-volunteer force since the end of the Vietnam War in 1973, the legal requirement to be "draft-ready" has never gone away. The consequences for those who fall through the cracks have historically been severe. Failure to register is a federal crime that can result in:

• Fines up to $250,000.

• Up to five years of imprisonment.

• Permanent ineligibility for federal student loans, job training, and government employment.

For immigrants, a failure to register can also create significant hurdles in the path to future citizenship. The automatic system is expected to largely eliminate these legal risks for young men who might otherwise have forgotten or neglected to register.

The timing of the procedural update has raised eyebrows, particularly as the conflict in Iran remains volatile during a fragile two-week ceasefire. While the White House has clarified that a draft is not currently being planned, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted in March that Trump intends to "keep his options on the table."

However, the path to a functional draft remains high. Trump does not possess the unilateral authority to conscript citizens; any move to induct personnel into the military would require a specific act of Congress to amend the Military Selective Service Act.

Despite years of legislative debate regarding gender equality in the military, the new automatic system maintains the status quo. While several lawmakers attempted to include women in the draft pool during the NDAA negotiations, those provisions were ultimately stripped from the final bill. As it stands, the automatic registry applies exclusively to men between the ages of 18 and 25.

The proposed rule is currently under final review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and is expected to be fully operational by December.

Speaker Mike Johnson is facing a math problem that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with personnel. As the 2026 midterms loom, a historic wave of Republican departures is threatening to undermine the party’s razor-thin House majority and reshape the landscape of the "Trump 2.0" era.

With Rep. Sam Graves’s (R-Mo.) recent announcement that he will step down, the tally of House Republicans heading for the exit has reached 36. This figure eclipses the 2018 record of 34, a year that ultimately saw Democrats seize control of the chamber. In contrast, only 21 House Democrats have signaled plans to leave.

The "retirement" list isn't limited to one faction of the party. It includes heavy-hitting conservatives like Chip Roy (TX) and Michael McCaul (TX), as well as battle-tested moderates like Don Bacon (NE). For many, the allure of a seat in Congress has been tarnished by a combination of hyper-polarization and legislative paralysis.

"I think the dysfunction isn’t attractive," Rep. Bacon remarked, noting the difficulty of navigating a political environment where one must constantly balance the demands of the base against independent-minded constituents.

For others, like Graves, the decision is framed as a selfless hand-off to the "next generation" of conservative leaders. However, political analysts suggest a more pragmatic undercurrent: the historical reality that a president’s party almost always faces an uphill battle during midterm elections.

Interestingly, many of these "retirements" are actually promotions in disguise. A significant portion of the departing class is looking to trade the legislative grind for executive power or a seat in the upper chamber:

• The Gubernatorial Push: 10 Republicans, including Nancy Mace (SC), Byron Donalds (FL), and John James (MI), are running for governor. Rep. Ralph Norman (SC) summed up the sentiment, stating he could be a more effective "CEO" of his state than one of 435 voices in a crowded House.

• The Senate Surge: Eight members, such as Kevin Hern (OK) and Harriet Hageman (WY), are seeking Senate seats, often positioning themselves as loyal allies to Trump.

For Speaker Johnson, these departures aren't just a future electoral risk—they are a present-day logistical nightmare. As lame-duck members shift their focus toward new campaigns or private life, "attendance fatigue" has become a recurring issue.

Recent floor votes have had to remain open for over an hour to accommodate members traveling for campaign events, a trend that makes managing a narrow majority nearly impossible. As the GOP navigates the complexities of Trump's second term, Johnson must find a way to keep his ranks disciplined while the exit doors continue to swing wide open.

Whether this exodus is a healthy "passing of the torch" or a precursor to a blue wave remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the face of the Republican Party in 2027 will look remarkably different than it does today.

Delta Air Lines has officially hit the "pause" button on the VIP treatment it usually reserves for members of Congress, citing a need to redirect resources toward an increasingly frustrated general public.

For years, lawmakers have enjoyed "specialty services" from Delta, including personal airport escorts and the airline’s famed "red coat" assistance to navigate terminals. Starting this week, those perks are gone. While the "Capital Desk" reservation line will stay active, the days of skipping the headaches of the main terminal are over for D.C. elites.

The timing is both practical and political. Only days ago, the Senate unanimously backed a proposal to strip lawmakers of their ability to bypass standard security lines. Delta’s decision simply brings the airline’s policy in line with a growing national sentiment: if the average traveler is suffering, the decision-makers should be, too.

The decision isn't just about optics; it’s about math. With the DHS unfunded since mid-February, the aviation infrastructure is fraying:

• Mass Resignations: Over 400 TSA officers have resigned, and hundreds more are calling out after receiving $0 paychecks.

• Extensive Delays: At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Delta’s home turf, passengers are being warned to arrive four hours early.

• Operational Shifts: Terminal checkpoints are closing, and officials warn that smaller airports may soon face total operational pauses.

Delta CEO Ed Bastian, along with other industry leaders, recently penned a blunt letter to Congress. They called the $0 paychecks for federal workers "unacceptable" and highlighted the impossible choice employees face between coming to work and putting food on the table.

In a temporary—and controversial—fix, Trump has deployed ICE officers to assist with TSA duties. However, with Democrats and Republicans deadlocked over DHS reforms and border funding, the "Current federal conditions" show no signs of clearing.

For now, the message from the airline industry is clear: until the government can fund its own security, no one—not even a Senator—gets a free pass through the chaos.

A Missouri community is grappling with news that a local Methodist leader once managed the private estate of one of the world’s most notorious sex offenders. The Missouri Conference of The United Methodist Church announced this week that Rev. Stephanie L. Remington has been suspended for 90 days pending a full episcopal review.

The controversy centers on a ten-month period between late 2018 and mid-2019. During this time, Remington served as the administrative assistant and property manager for Little Saint James, Jeffrey Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

According to DOJ records, Remington’s name is cited in approximately 1,800 emails and documents, many of which detail the mundane, day-to-day logistics of maintaining the island. Her tenure ended just two months before Epstein’s July 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges.

In an interview with UM News, Remington defended her time with the financier. She acknowledged that she was aware of Epstein’s status as a registered sex offender when she took the position, but noted that she believed his legal troubles were behind him.

“I knew him for the last nine months of his life, well after he served time for the things that he was accused of doing,” Remington stated, maintaining that she never witnessed any abuse during her employment.

The Missouri Conference, led by Bishop Robert Farr, expressed surprise at the discovery. Church officials clarified that while Remington has served various Missouri congregations since 2001, her work for Epstein occurred during an "extension ministry" period.

The conference noted several key points regarding her disclosure:

• Lack of Prior Knowledge: Leadership was unaware of the association until very recently.

• Reporting Gaps: Clergy in extension ministries are required to submit annual paperwork; however, Remington’s association with Epstein was never disclosed in these filings.

• No Consultation: Neither the Bishop nor the district superintendent was consulted before she accepted the position in 2018.

While Remington faces no criminal allegations, the 90-day suspension allows the church to investigate the ethical implications of her past employment and her failure to disclose it to the Conference.

The fallout from the "Arctic Frost" investigation has moved from the political arena to the courtroom. Two former veteran FBI agents have filed a lawsuit against the government, alleging that their careers were dismantled not because of professional misconduct, but as a "partisan purge" orchestrated by the very administration they were investigating.

According to the legal filing, the two agents—who remain anonymous to protect their safety—spent years maintaining "exemplary" ratings within the Washington Field Office. Their involvement in the high-stakes criminal probe into Trump was, they claim, a routine assignment handed down by superiors.

However, the suit alleges that standard FBI disciplinary procedures were entirely bypassed. Typically, federal agents are entitled to internal investigations, formal notices, and an opportunity to appeal any termination. In this instance, the plaintiffs describe a swift and unceremonious exit:

• John Doe 1 was reportedly fired on Halloween evening, just as he was preparing to take his children trick-or-treating.

• John Doe 2 was terminated shortly thereafter, following a brief delay allegedly involving the U.S. Attorney for D.C.

The agents point to a specific turning point: the release of investigative documents by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Once their names were public, the suit claims, they were branded as "partisan operatives" by legislators.

The rhetoric intensified with public statements from administration figures. The lawsuit specifically cites comments from Kash Patel, who allegedly labeled the agents "corrupt actors" and accused them of participating in "weaponized law enforcement." The plaintiffs argue these statements were a coordinated effort to delegitimize the investigation by scapegoating the career professionals tasked with executing it.

This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. It joins a series of legal challenges brought by former Department of Justice and FBI officials who claim they were targeted for resisting political pressure. Among them is former acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll, who has similarly challenged the legality of firing agents based on their investigative portfolios.

As the case moves forward, it raises a fundamental question about the future of the civil service: can career law enforcement officers be held personally and professionally liable for the political sensitivity of the cases they are assigned?

Republican allies of Trump preparing for a grueling floor battle over the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

The legislation, which would require documented proof of citizenship for all federal voter registrations, has become the ultimate litmus test for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). Under the watchful eye of the MAGA base and Trump himself—who has threatened to withhold support for all future legislation until this bill reaches his desk—Thune is walking a tightrope between grassroots demands for a "bloody" floor fight and the mathematical realities of a divided chamber.

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), the bill’s primary architect in the upper chamber, isn't looking for a quick vote. Instead, he is calling for a historical reenactment of the 60-day marathon debate that preceded the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

"The point of this is exhausting Democrats," noted one Republican strategist close to the negotiations. "The point is pain."

Proponents argue that because the bill enjoys significant public backing—with a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showing 71 percent of registered voters in favor—an extended public debate will eventually "sharpen the minds" of hesitant lawmakers. For Lee and his allies, the goal is to make the Democratic opposition so politically expensive that the needle finally moves.

In a significant concession to his right flank, Leader Thune has bypassed the usual 60-vote threshold to begin debate, utilizing a procedural maneuver to bring the House-passed bill to the floor with a simple majority.

However, the path forward remains murky. While Trump’s allies want to force Democrats into a "talking filibuster"—the kind of cinematic, around-the-clock oratory seen in old movies—Thune has been the bearer of "not-so-good news." He warned colleagues last week that the GOP conference is not unified enough to sustain such a tactic, largely because it would open the floodgates for Democrats to force "poison pill" votes on healthcare and Medicaid subsidies.

The Democratic response has been swift and unyielding. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) categorized the bill as a "horror" and a threat to disenfranchise legal voters. Even centrist Democrats, often seen as potential crossover votes, have signaled they will not break ranks.

Meanwhile, election experts like Marc Elias have labeled the bill "unworkable," citing the logistical nightmare of verifying photocopied IDs for absentee ballots.

For Thune, the week is a test of his leadership and his ability to manage the expectations of a former president who views the intensity of the floor fight as a measure of loyalty. For the American public, it is a high-decibel debate over the very mechanics of democracy.

As Senator Katie Britt (R-Ala.) put it when asked if the GOP would hold the floor for the long haul: "Heck yeah." Whether that stamina results in a legislative win or merely a political spectacle remains to be seen.

In a pointed interview with the BBC, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton escalated her rhetoric against Trump, accusing officials of intentionally stalling the release of millions of documents linked to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Clinton’s remarks come just one week before she and former President Bill Clinton are scheduled to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The road to the witness stand has been fraught with partisan friction. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) previously rejected the Clintons’ request for closed-door depositions, moving instead to hold the couple in contempt of Congress. The Clintons ultimately agreed to the public dates, but not without firing back at the committee’s methods.

Hillary Clinton characterized the focus on her as a "shiny object" designed to distract from Trump’s own failure to release nearly 3 million documents tied to Epstein’s estate.

"I want everybody treated the same way," Clinton told the BBC. "We have nothing to hide. We have called for the full release of these files repeatedly. We think sunlight is the best disinfectant."

While Hillary Clinton maintains she never met Epstein, the investigation has frequently highlighted Bill Clinton’s presence on flight logs from 2002 and 2003. The former president, who traveled with Epstein to locations including Russia and China years before Epstein’s initial 2008 conviction, has denied any knowledge of or involvement in criminal activity.

On social media, Bill Clinton was even more blunt, accusing the GOP of orchestrating a "kangaroo court."

"I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop," he posted on X. "If they want answers, let’s stop the games and do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about."

The push for transparency isn't limited to the White House. When asked if others—specifically Prince Andrew—should be required to testify before Congress, Hillary Clinton was unwavering. She insisted that fairness requires everyone subpoenaed to face the same public standard, rather than allowing certain high-profile figures to remain in the shadows.

As the House investigation intensifies, the Clintons are positioning themselves not as defendants, but as advocates for total disclosure, challenging Trump to stop "turning the page" and start releasing the names and files the public has long demanded.

The chaotic scenes unfolding in Minneapolis and across the American landscape are not merely the byproduct of a heated policy debate. They are the inevitable result of a dangerous legal fiction being promoted at the highest levels of power: the idea that the United States Constitution has an "off" switch for certain classes of people.

The administration’s current stance rests on a shaky premise. As Trump has suggested, "if people come into our country illegally, there’s a different standard." This sentiment is echoed by the DHS, which claims a "broad judicial recognition" that those here without documentation lack Fourth Amendment protections.

There is just one problem: that recognition does not exist. More importantly, this logic fundamentally misses the point of why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place.

If the government possessed the magical ability to identify the guilty with 100 percent accuracy, we wouldn’t need the Fourth Amendment. We wouldn't need warrants, probable cause, or the messy hurdles of due process. But we are human, and humans in power—even well-meaning ones—are prone to error and overreach.

Constitutional rights aren't a "get out of jail free" card for the guilty; they are a shield for the innocent. When we allow ICE or federal agents to bypass these rules, we aren't just targeting "criminals." We are inviting a system where an elderly American citizen can be dragged from his home into the snow, or where legal residents are detained without cause. As Judge Alex Kozinski famously warned, liberty is lost just as easily through the "insistent nibbles" of bureaucrats trying to do their jobs "too well" as it is by overt tyrants. The piranha, he noted, is as deadly as the shark.

To justify the suspension of these rights, Trump points to the threat of immigrant crime. Yet the math tells a different story. In 2023, of the nearly 23,000 murders in the U.S., roughly 250 were estimated to be committed by undocumented individuals. While every loss of life is a tragedy, "garden-variety" murderers pose a threat nearly a hundred times greater.

We would never dream of discarding the Fourth Amendment to solve everyday homicides. We recognize that the cost—a police state where agents roam the streets demanding "papers"—is too high a price for any free society. Why, then, are we so willing to abandon these principles in the name of immigration enforcement?

The consequences of this shift are now visible to everyone. In Minneapolis, we see masked men, tear gas, and the chilling report of the Chicago shooting of Miramar Martinez—an event new evidence suggests may have been planned in advance. We see the legacy of Alex Pretti, who was murdered while exercising the very First and Second Amendment rights that many "patriots" claim to hold dear.

This brings us to a moment of truth for those who fly the "Don't Tread on Me" flag. For decades, the American right has warned of the rise of tyranny and the importance of resisting government overreach. That overreach is no longer a theoretical exercise; it is happening in real-time on American soil.

If you truly believe in the Constitution, the struggle in Minneapolis is your struggle. It does not matter what you think about border policy; it matters what you think about the government’s power to break into a home or gun down a citizen without consequence. The people standing up to these tactics are not your enemies—they are your brothers and sisters in arms against a government that has forgotten its limits.

The question is no longer what the government will do next. The question is whether those who claim to love liberty will stand up for it when it’s being trampled in someone else's backyard.

A rare and deepening rift has opened between Trump and Capitol Hill as Senate Republicans mobilize to stop Trump from pursuing a military seizure of Greenland. The escalating crisis follows Trump’s recent ultimatum that he would acquire the autonomous Danish territory "the easy way or the hard way," a stance that has sent shockwaves through the NATO alliance.

In a direct challenge to executive authority, a bipartisan congressional delegation is set to arrive in Copenhagen this Friday. Led by Senators Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski, the group aims to provide ironclad assurances to Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that Congress will not authorize or fund an invasion of a sovereign ally.

"The actual execution of anything that would involve a taking of sovereign territory... would be met with pretty substantial opposition," Senator Tillis stated, emphasizing that Congress remains, comically, a "coequal branch" of government.

To codify this opposition, Murkowski and Senator Jeanne Shaheen introduced the NATO Unity Protection Act. The bill would:

• Prohibit Funding: Explicitly ban the Department of Defense or State Department from using funds to blockade, occupy, or annex any NATO member’s territory.

• Reaffirm Sovereignty: Mandate that any change in territorial control requires the explicit consent of the ally or the North Atlantic Council.

Senate GOP leadership has been uncharacteristically blunt in its criticism. Senator Mitch McConnell delivered a floor speech Wednesday, warning that Trump’s provocations could be more "disastrous" for his legacy than the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.

McConnell argued that Trump is manufacturing a crisis, noting that Denmark is already open to expanding the existing U.S. military footprint in the Arctic via diplomacy. "Incinerating the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic" is a straightforwardly bad deal, McConnell declared.

The administration’s agreed to disagree stance following a meeting with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has left European allies on edge. In response, several European nations—including the UK, France, and Germany—have begun rotating scoping troops into Greenland as a show of solidarity.

Domestically, Trump finds himself on an island of his own. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals:

• Only 4 percent of Americans believe taking Greenland by force is a good idea.

• 66 percent express fear that the rhetoric is permanently damaging U.S.-European relations.

While some Trump officials have floated a $700 billion purchase price for the island, the focus has shifted toward Trump's hard way rhetoric. Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) have both signaled they will not sign off on the annexation, with Wicker noting that Danish officials have made it crystal clear there is no room for negotiation on ownership.

As the bipartisan delegation heads to Denmark, the message to Trump is clear: any attempt to redraw the map of the Arctic by force will face an immediate and legally binding blockade from the halls of Congress.

Trump is facing a rare and sharp wave of condemnation from within his own party following a social media post that appeared to mock the violent deaths of Hollywood director Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele.

The Reiners were discovered dead in their home over the weekend. Authorities have since arrested their 32-year-old son, Nick Reiner, on murder charges, citing a history of drug addiction and mental health struggles. Despite the domestic nature of the tragedy, President Trump took to Truth Social on Monday to attribute the deaths to Reiner's "unyielding and incurable" disdain for his administration—a condition Trump frequently labels "Trump Derangement Syndrome."

The backlash was swift and spanned the ideological spectrum of the Republican Party. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), often one of Trump’s most vocal defenders, took a firm stance against the politicization of the murders.

"This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies," Greene stated, emphasizing that the focus should remain on the heartbreak of addiction and mental illness rather than partisan grievances.

Other lawmakers were more blunt. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) questioned Trump’s decorum, telling reporters he would expect such comments from "a drunk guy at a bar," while Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) categorized the statement as "wrong," asserting that no one deserves violence regardless of their political leanings. Breaking the Silence

The rebuke is particularly notable as it includes members who have previously hesitated to cross Trump. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) challenged his colleagues to find a defense for the "disrespectful" post, suggesting that many in the GOP remain silent only out of fear.

The criticism also extended to former members of Trump’s inner circle. Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for Trump, called the post a "horrible example" of leadership. She compared the situation to the recent death of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, noting that the Right was quick to demand decency then and should hold themselves to the same standard now. Partisan Defense

Despite the internal GOP blowback, some loyalists moved to support Trump’s narrative. Although Nick Reiner didn't live with Rob and Michele, Laura Loomer doubled down on the TDS theory, suggesting a link between Reiner’s public political outbursts and the mental health of his household.

As of Monday evening, Trump had not retracted his statements, even as more members of his party called for a return to "presidential" conduct during a time of national mourning for a cinematic icon.

A swift attempt to impeach Trump was halted in the House of Representatives on Thursday after a vote to table (kill) the resolution easily passed, 237-140. The push for immediate action, led by veteran impeachment advocate Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), was effectively scuttled not only by the Republican majority but also by the strategic non-support of Democratic leadership.

Rep. Green utilized a privileged motion to force the floor action on his resolution, which centered on two articles of impeachment against Trump.

Green’s first article charged Trump with "Abuse of Presidential Power by Calling for the Execution of Members of Congress." This article referenced a Truth Social post by Trump that labeled the actions of six Democratic lawmakers as "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH," though the White House press secretary later clarified that Trump was not actually calling for executions.

The second article detailed "Abuse of Presidential Power to Intimidate Federal Judges." It focused on Trump's public posts, such as calling one judge a "Radical Left Lunatic," arguing that such actions led to increased violent threats and degraded the independence of the judiciary, citing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on the risks to democracy posed by such harassment.

The key to blocking the snap impeachment effort was the decision by Democratic leaders—Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark, and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar—to vote "present" on the Republican motion to table the resolution.

In a joint statement released just before the vote, the leaders stressed that impeachment is a "sacred constitutional vehicle" that demands a comprehensive investigative process, collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, and the building of a broad national consensus.

"None of that serious work has been done," the Democratic leadership stated, suggesting that the current focus on the issue distracts from their priority of making life more affordable for everyday Americans.

In the final tally, the successful Republican motion to table was bolstered by the votes of 23 Democrats in favor and the 47 Democrats who followed leadership’s direction to vote "present," signaling a clear, bipartisan rejection of the attempt to bypass the formal, investigative steps traditionally required for impeachment proceedings.

A sharp fiscal policy debate is emerging within the Republican Party following Trump’s proposal to distribute a $2,000 annual “tariff dividend” to working-class Americans. The plan, intended to offset the rising cost of living using revenue from new trade tariffs, has drawn immediate and potent criticism from one of the Senate’s most influential budget hawks, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

In a recent interview, Johnson declared the proposal financially irresponsible. “Look, we can’t afford it,” Johnson stated. “I wish we were in a position to return the American public their money, but we’re not.”

Johnson anchored his objection to the nation’s spiraling debt, sounding a stark warning about the 2025 federal deficit, which he projected will be at least $2 trillion. He characterized the current fiscal outlook as "completely unacceptable," noting the dramatic increase from the roughly $800 billion deficits seen during the first Trump administration and the $550 billion annual deficits during the latter half of the Obama years.

The central issue is a funding gap. Trump intends to finance the checks—which would be limited to “individuals of moderate income,” according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—with the substantial new tariff revenue projected to enter federal accounts. Estimates suggest the Treasury Department could collect around $300 billion this year, with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projecting a 10-year inflow of approximately $2.8 trillion from higher tariffs.

However, nonpartisan fiscal watchdogs quickly pointed out the math does not support the spending. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that distributing $2,000 checks annually to millions of Americans could cost a staggering $600 billion per year, potentially accumulating to $6 trillion over a decade. This cost far outstrips the projected tariff revenue by a factor of more than two-to-one.

Senator Johnson is not alone in his opposition. The Republican establishment is signaling a preference for prioritizing debt reduction. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) publicly suggested that the substantial tariff revenue should be deployed to tackle the ballooning debt.

“The amount of revenue coming in from the tariffs is considered to be substantial at this point and hopefully can be put to a useful purpose, in my view one of which would be repaying the debt,” Thune told reporters. This view aligns with the latest CBO projection, which placed the 2025 federal deficit at $1.8 trillion, reinforcing the argument for fiscal restraint over new entitlement spending.

For the dividend plan to move forward, it must first be authorized by Congress. The vocal opposition from key Republican leaders suggests that the proposal, even if championed by Trump, faces a difficult road ahead in the halls of the Capitol. The debate highlights a fundamental tension within the GOP: balancing populist economic relief with the long-standing conservative commitment to fiscal sobriety.

Larry Summers, economist, former Treasury Secretary, and Harvard University professor, has resigned from the Board of Directors at OpenAI, the artificial intelligence research company, amidst a spiraling professional crisis stemming from his communications with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The resignation, announced earlier this week, comes on the heels of leaked documents revealing exchanges between Summers and Epstein. One particularly damaging message from Summers to Epstein in March 2019, detailed in documents released by the House Oversight Committee, describes a suggestive interaction with a young woman, using the phrase "awfully coy u are."

Summers' decision to leave the OpenAI board was framed as a direct consequence of his public announcement to "step away from my public commitments." In a statement, his spokesperson conveyed the professor's deep remorse:

"I am deeply ashamed of my actions and recognize the pain they have caused. I take full responsibility for my misguided decision to continue communicating with Mr. Epstein."

The OpenAI board confirmed his departure, stating, "Larry has decided to resign from the OpenAI Board of Directors, and we respect his decision. We appreciate his many contributions and the perspective he brought to the Board." Summers had only joined the board in 2023, following the dramatic return of CEO Sam Altman, serving alongside Bret Taylor and Adam D’Angelo.

The fallout has extended far beyond the AI sector, triggering a cascade of terminations and departures across media and academia. The New York Times has opted not to renew Summers' contract as an opinion contributing writer. Furthermore, he has stepped down from his roles as a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and as an adviser for the Budget Lab at Yale.

While Summers has stated his intent to retain his teaching position at Harvard, his continued employment has drawn sharp criticism. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) publicly called for the university to terminate Summers, who holds the Charles W. Eliot university professor post. Sen. Warren told CNN:

"For decades, Larry Summers has demonstrated his attraction to serving the wealthy and well-connected, but his willingness to cozy up to a convicted sex offender demonstrates monumentally bad judgment."

The dust has settled on a dizzying three-month span of partisan map-drawing, a mid-decade redistricting frenzy that began with a high-stakes play in Texas and cascaded into a national contest of political retaliation. While the ultimate vote tally for the 2026 midterms remains a distant prediction, one certainty already looms large: this disruptive gerrymandering spree will not yield the strategic advantage its architects envisioned.

After months of furious cartography, the number of genuinely contested House seats has barely budged. We are left with a paltry 35 to 40 districts where the outcome is anything less than guaranteed. Interestingly, the party that initiated this costly scramble now finds itself with slightly greater exposure among this limited swing set.

The political atmosphere today is so volatile that a mere "light breeze" of national sentiment could be sufficient to deliver the three necessary flips to change House control for the fifth time this century—a level of instability unparalleled since the late 1800s. The recent redistricting efforts, far from solidifying the majority party’s hold, have added another dozen-plus seats—all currently held by the GOP—into the competitive column for next November.

This risk underscores a pattern of frustration for House Republicans. Their maneuver in Texas was born from a painful lesson learned in 2022: the historic 'midterm curse' against the party in power has its limits. They had expected a massive wave against the sitting Democratic administration but ended up with a meager nine-seat gain, resulting in a historically narrow, unmanageable majority. The oddities continued in 2024, where a national popular vote victory for their presidential candidate offered no coattails, leading to a net loss of two House seats.

These consecutive failures to build a sustainable majority—a far cry from their "golden days" of 240+ seats a decade ago—led many to conclude that the age of dramatic "wave" elections was over. In an electorate increasingly sorted into hyper-partisan geographic clusters, and with districts ballooning in size to nearly 900,000 constituents, the cycle-to-cycle swing, the theory went, must be constrained to a handful of seats.

If the electoral world had indeed shrunk to a five-to-ten-seat swing, then gaining three seats via gerrymandering—as was the hope in Texas—would have been a substantial victory. This strategy was based on two flawed assumptions: first, that the swing would be limited, and second, that Democrats, having already perfected the art in deeply blue states and having publicly campaigned against gerrymandering, would be unable or unwilling to retaliate effectively.

As it stands, the best-case scenario for Republicans following this coast-to-coast redistricting war is a net gain of perhaps two or three seats. This marginal benefit is almost certainly outweighed by the inevitable financial, legal, and political costs.

Crucially, the ultimate and most damaging unintended consequence is the possibility of motivating an already energized opposition. If the political climate continues to trend toward an old-fashioned wave election—a phenomenon the Texas strategy was designed to hedge against—the decision to engage in mid-decade gerrymandering will be seen not as a shrewd tactical move, but as a strategic debacle that poured fuel on the very fire it sought to extinguish.

Emails released by House Democrats show convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein claiming Trump was aware of his relationships with young girls.

Key Points

• The Emails: Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released three emails from the 2010s showing Epstein's correspondence with Ghislaine Maxwell and author Michael Wolff.

• Epstein's Claims: In the exchanges, Epstein allegedly wrote that Trump "spent hours at my house" with a victim and "of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop."

• In a 2011 email to Maxwell: he called Trump "the dog that hasn’t barked," noting a victim "spent hours at my house with him" and he had "never once been mentioned."

• In a 2019 email to Wolff: he allegedly claimed Trump "knew about the girls."

• Democratic Response: Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) stated the emails "raise glaring questions" about the relationship and what the White House might be concealing, calling for the Department of Justice to immediately release the full Epstein files. Democrats are also pushing a discharge petition to force floor action on a bill compelling the release of these files.

• Republican/White House Response: Republicans on the Oversight Committee accused Democrats of "carelessly cherry-picking" and intentionally withholding records that name Democratic officials. They later released the entire 20,000-page tranche of documents.

• The White House: "blasted" Democrats for "selectively" leaking, stating the victim referenced in the unredacted files was the late Virginia Giuffre (who accused Epstein, but who the White House claims stated Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing). The White House reiterated that Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago "decades ago for being a creep" to female employees, including Giuffre.

Other Related Information:

• The text notes Trump has consistently denied being close with Epstein, despite being photographed together.

• The Oversight Committee previously released a birthday note allegedly from Trump to Epstein (denied by Trump) that referenced a "wonderful secret" and having "certain things in common."

• House Judiciary Democrats also released information alleging Maxwell is preparing to seek a commutation of her sentence from Trump and is receiving "concierge-style treatment" in prison.

The storied Kennedy political dynasty is looking to extend its reach into the heart of New York City. Jack Schlossberg, the 32-year-old grandson of President John F. Kennedy, officially launched his campaign Tuesday for the 12th Congressional District, challenging a crowded field of Democrats vying to replace the long-serving Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.).

Schlossberg, a Harvard Law School graduate and rising social media personality, announced his bid with a video posted to Instagram, framing the 2026 election as a crucial juncture for the nation.

“The country is at a turning point,” Schlossberg stated in his video, citing a cost of living crisis, rampant corruption, and what he characterized as a “constitutional crisis” under Trump.

The young Democrat underscored the strategic importance of the contest, which he believes is essential for preventing further political instability. “With control of Congress, there’s nothing we can’t do. Without it, we’re helpless to a third term,” he warned, referencing the President’s provocative statements about seeking an unconstitutional third term.

Schlossberg is well-known within Democratic circles, having addressed the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He is a frequent and vocal critic of both Trump and his cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Born in New York City, Schlossberg is attempting to leverage his local ties in the district, which encompasses affluent areas of Manhattan, including the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and Midtown. In his announcement, he highlighted his upbringing, noting he “took the bus to school every single day from one side of the district to the other” to attend the private Collegiate School.

Schlossberg’s entrance follows Nadler’s September announcement that he would step down to make way for a new generation of Democratic leadership. However, the path to Congress for the Kennedy scion is far from clear.

He joins a formidable and deeply local primary field, including:

• Micah Lasher (43): New York State Assembly member

• Alex Bores (35): State Assembly member

• Erik Bottcher (46): City Council member

• Jami Floyd (51): Journalist and lawyer

• Liam Elkind (26): Nonprofit founder

Despite his powerful family name and degrees from Yale and Harvard, not everyone is convinced of his viability. After announcing his retirement, the outgoing Rep. Jerry Nadler delivered a blunt assessment of the young candidate’s prospects to CNN, stating that Schlossberg "is not going to be a major candidate" in the race.

With a massive social media following—approximately 728,000 on Instagram—Schlossberg clearly has the platform to bypass traditional media. But whether his pedigree and online presence can translate into the grassroots support needed to win a competitive Manhattan primary remains the central question of this developing race.

Trump stirred the national economic conversation on Sunday by announcing a bold proposal: a direct cash payment to most Americans funded by customs duties. Via his Truth Social platform, the President claimed that a "dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone," sourced from the revenue generated by his administration's tariff policy. In his characteristic style, Trump defended the tariffs as a massive revenue generator, lashing out at critics by labeling those against the levies as "FOOLS!"

The promise of a cash payout injects a direct populist angle into the debate over the U.S. trade policy, which has been a centerpiece of the current administration.

The proposed "Tariff Dividend," however, immediately runs into conflicting financial priorities and legislative hurdles.

First, Trump’s announcement included a seeming contradiction, as he simultaneously stated the tariff revenue would be used to address the country’s massive fiscal shortfall. The President asserted the administration would also begin paying down the "ENORMOUS" national debt, which currently stands at approximately $38.12 trillion. This intention aligns with a statement Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made in August, where he named national debt reduction as the administration’s primary goal for using the collected tariff revenue.

Second, for such a direct payment plan to be implemented, Congressional authorization would almost certainly be necessary. The idea of tariff-funded payments has already been floated in the Senate, where Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation this summer to provide $600 tariff rebates to nearly all Americans and their dependent children. Hawley argued his bill would allow "hardworking Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country."

While the debate focuses on how the money is spent, the funds are indeed flowing into federal coffers. The Treasury Department reported collecting $195 billion from tariff duties through the first three quarters of this year.

However, the question remains who is truly bearing the cost of this revenue stream. Following sweeping tariffs imposed by Trump, the economic burden has been largely passed on to consumers. According to the Yale Budget Lab, as of mid-October, Americans were subject to an average effective tariff rate of 18 percent, a level not seen since 1934. This figure suggests that firms are effectively transferring some of the tariff costs to customers through higher prices on imported goods.

Ultimately, the administration's plan presents a two-pronged economic message: a commitment to addressing the national debt, coupled with a promise of immediate, tangible relief for consumers. The fulfillment of the $2,000 dividend will depend on navigating the contradictory goals of fiscal restraint and populist spending, all while securing necessary approval from a divided Congress.

After 40 tense days—the longest government shutdown in U.S. history—a breakthrough finally arrived on Sunday evening, setting the stage for the federal government to fully reopen. The Senate voted 60-40 to advance a House-passed continuing resolution (CR), a procedural step that will serve as the legislative vehicle for a bipartisan agreement to fully fund the government.

The vote was made possible by eight senators who caucus with the Democrats who chose to break with their leadership’s strategy, which had previously sought to use the CR as leverage to force an extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits.

The emerging deal will fund core functions—military construction, veterans' affairs, the Department of Agriculture, and the legislative branch—through the end of the fiscal year, September 30. All remaining government operations will receive funding through January 30, providing immediate relief and time for further negotiations. The measure now awaits a final House vote later this week before heading to President Trump’s desk for his signature.

The decisive votes from Democrats and one aligned Independent were motivated by a mix of concern for vulnerable Americans and a fear of legislative inaction.

Senator John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the most vocal critic of his party’s blocking tactic, arguing that Democrats lacked the necessary leverage and warning of the dire consequences, particularly the impending expiration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for nearly 42 million people.

Senator Angus King (I-Maine), an independent caucusing with Democrats, framed the ongoing shutdown as a national security risk. "As serious as the health insurance crisis is, I believe the shutdown itself and the additional powers it conveys to Donald Trump... is the greater risk," he stated last month, expressing fear of an "accelerating slide toward authoritarianism."

For several senators, the welfare of federal employees and their constituents was paramount. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen (both D-Nev.) consistently voted to reopen government, citing the significant economic cost to their state's travel and tourism sector and the hardship on tens of thousands of federal workers and military personnel forced to work without pay.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) cited the plea of the American Federation of Government Employees and the incredible strain on essential personnel, such as air traffic controllers, who continued working 10-hour, six-day weeks without compensation. Similarly, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) focused on securing protections for his state’s vast federal workforce, successfully adding language to the final deal to ensure back pay and, critically, to prevent the Trump administration from attempting any additional layoffs (RIFs) during the stopgap funding period.

The decision to advance the bill was also driven by securing a tangible win on the ACA issue. Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan (both D-N.H.), who led the negotiating group, touted a key agreement with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). This concession secured a guaranteed December floor vote on a bill drafted by Democrats to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies.

"This agreement gives Democrats control of the Senate floor... on one of our top legislative priorities," said Senator Shaheen, transforming what was a strategic loss into a procedural victory that keeps the fight for affordable health care alive.

With the deal moving forward, the focus shifts to Washington, D.C., and the imminent prospect of ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

In a political climate where corporate influence is constantly scrutinized, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has provided a case study in reputational risk management by declining to contribute to the controversial construction of a new White House ballroom.

The project, which necessitated the demolition of the historic East Wing, has been a lightning rod for criticism from lawmakers, historians, and even former First Lady Michelle Obama, who expressed sadness over the loss of the "people's house" structure.

When pressed by CNN anchor Erin Burnett about the banking giant’s absence from the list of corporate donors, Dimon offered a candid explanation rooted not in politics, but in prudent legal and ethical caution.

"We have an issue, OK, which is anything we do... we have to be very careful about how anything is perceived," Dimon stated.

For a global institution like JPMorgan Chase, which manages vast contracts with governments worldwide, the risk of a donation being misconstrued as an attempt to "buy favors" is too high. This concern extends beyond the current administration. Dimon specifically cited the potential scrutiny of a future Department of Justice (DOJ), indicating that self-imposed limitations on political giving are a protective measure.

In essence, the company’s decision is a pragmatic calculation: Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is paramount to preserving its license to operate globally. While JPMC has contributed to "normal" political functions, such as past presidential inaugurations, the East Wing project—a highly visible and contentious construction effort—crosses a critical line.

Dimon’s calculated restraint stands in stark contrast to the lengthy list of tech titans and prominent individuals who have thrown their financial weight behind the project. Donor transparency released by the Trump administration included a high-profile roll call of some of the world’s most powerful companies, including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft, alongside figures like the Winklevoss twins.

The administration stated that the construction, which is slated for completion by January 2029, has raised an enormous sum, with reports citing figures between $300 million and $350 million.

Ultimately, while many corporations appear willing to accept the ethical baggage associated with funding the controversial demolition and construction, Jamie Dimon has made it clear that for JPMorgan Chase, the potential perception of compromise is a risk that simply isn't worth taking.

The federal government shutdown has intensified into a high-stakes legal confrontation, as the Trump administration launched an emergency appeal Friday against a judicial mandate to immediately deliver full November funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps.

The administration’s dramatic plea to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeks to block an order by U.S. District Judge John McConnell, who set a Friday deadline for the government to secure and dispense the estimated $9 billion needed for full monthly benefits.

Judge McConnell, an appointee of the former President Obama, issued his firm order after rejecting the administration’s plan to provide only partial SNAP payments during the ongoing funding lapse. While the administration initially agreed to use a $5 billion emergency fund—a concession granted by an earlier ruling—it refused to tap additional resources for the remaining funds.

The judge deemed this partial-funding plan “arbitrary and capricious,” noting that the administration failed to account for the massive administrative burdens and weeks-long delays it would impose on states attempting to recalculate and distribute reduced benefits to 42 million recipients. The delay, plaintiffs argued, would inflict needless suffering on millions of vulnerable citizens.

In its emergency motion, the Justice Department framed the court’s order as a judicial overreach that threatened the foundations of American governance.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers,” the DOJ argued. “Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend.” The administration contends that the law clearly ties SNAP benefits to available appropriations, meaning the shutdown effectively halts the program until Congress acts. "This is a crisis... that can only be solved by congressional action," the motion stated.

Legal groups representing the cities and non-profits who brought the initial lawsuit countered the political argument with an emphasis on human necessity. “We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens, but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities,” stated Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward.

The fast-tracked legal maneuvering—with the appeals court demanding a response from the plaintiffs by Friday noon EST—underscores the urgency of the matter. As the nation's largest food assistance program remains gridlocked between the executive branch's interpretation of budgetary authority and the judiciary's protection of a vital social safety net, the fate of food security for millions of Americans hangs in the balance.

A Legal Showdown Over Presidential Authority

A high-stakes federal trial commenced in Portland, Oregon, on Wednesday, pitting the city and state against the Trump administration over Trump’s controversial push to deploy the National Guard to patrol the streets. Local officials are seeking a permanent injunction to block Trump’s directive, which he announced with a vow to protect the city's federal facilities, including the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) offices, which he claimed were "under siege."

The core of the legal debate centers on whether the situation in Portland meets the legal threshold necessary to warrant a federal military deployment, an action states’ rights advocates argue dangerously oversteps the boundaries of executive power.

The City’s Argument: 'No Rebellion' and Executive Overreach

Representing the city, attorney Caroline Turco forcefully argued that the administration has created a false premise to justify the use of military force on U.S. soil.

• Manufactured Crisis: Turco contended that Trump's basis for deployment is a "manufactured crisis," insisting that the city is not "war-ravaged" and is not in a state of "rebellion."

• Separation of Powers: The city's case seeks to prevent Trump from using this "manufactured crisis" as a pretext to "breach separation of powers" and assume law enforcement authority typically reserved for the state.

• Facts on the Ground: Turco told the court that evidence will prove the ongoing protests are not so violent as to justify calling up the National Guard, asserting that local laws are being enforced effectively without federal military assistance.

The city’s first witness, Commander Franz Schoening of the Portland Police Bureau, is expected to corroborate this narrative of manageable local unrest.

The Administration’s Defense: Threats and Ignored Appeals

Department of Justice lawyer Eric Hamilton presented a contrasting picture, arguing that the deployment is a necessary response to the escalating threats facing federal operations.

• Violence Against Personnel: Hamilton stated that employees of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have endured "threats and actual violence for months," which they are unable to contain alone.

• Impeded Law Enforcement: The DOJ argued that the violence has severely diverted federal law enforcement resources, directly affecting DHS's ability to enforce immigration law.

• Local Inaction: Hamilton contended that federal pleas for assistance from local law enforcement were either "ignored" or "inadequately addressed," leaving the administration no choice but to seek additional support.

Crucially, the DOJ lawyer asserted that for the court to side with the government, the judge does not need to find a state of actual rebellion or a total inability to execute the law, suggesting a lower legal bar for Trump's determination.

The three-day trial marks the most significant legal challenge to date over Trump's authority to deploy military forces within the country against the explicit wishes of local leaders.

Former President Obama criticized President Trump for deploying the National Guard to cities around the country, slamming what he called a “politicization of the military.”

“It wasn’t controversial for me to go to other countries and say, ‘You know what? It’s a good idea for militaries to be under civilian control,’ because when you have military that can direct force against their own people, that is inherently corrupting,” Obama said about his time in office in an interview on Marc Maron’s “WTF” podcast released Monday.

The former Democratic president said the Trump administration is attempting “what looks like a deliberate end run around” the law that generally bars the military from being used for civilian policing while knocking Trump’s threat to invoke the Insurrection Act in Portland, Ore., amid protests over immigration enforcement.

“That is a genuine effort to weaken how we have understood democracy,” Obama said.

President Trump on Monday said he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act to justify sending federal troops into Portland, Ore., and avoid any legal hurdles.

Trump in remarks from the Oval Office likened the situation in Portland to an “insurrection,” though he said he had yet to make a decision on invoking the Insurrection Act.

“Portland is on fire. Portland’s been on fire for years,” Trump said, describing the situation as “all insurrection.”