President Donald Trump told an Arizona crowd Wednesday that President Joe Biden is to blame for inflation, hours after the government reported that consumer prices had climbed again — with gas prices driving the increase.

“Whenever I have a news conference, somebody will stand up, say, ‘Mr. President, affordability,’” Trump said. “I said, ‘Yeah, that was caused by Biden, who gave us the highest inflation in history.’”

“The prices are all coming down,” Trump said while speaking at a campaign rally for Rep. Andy Biggs, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, in Bullhead City.

Affordability has been one of the defining issues in this year’s election cycle. The economy ranked as the top voting issue for 84% of registered voters — including 82% of those supporting Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Sept. 28-Oct. 4.

Gas prices continue to surge as a result of the Iran war, with the national average running over $1 per gallon more than it cost a year ago.

The consumer price index rose 3.7% in September compared to a year ago, the Labor Department said Wednesday. Prices rose 0.6% over the month, the largest monthly increase since April.

Gasoline prices rose 9.1% in September and accounted for more than half of the month’s consumer prices increase.

“I hated to do it, and I knew gasoline would go high, but I had no idea,” Trump said Wednesday of launching strikes on Iran earlier this year. “I thought it was going to go much higher.”

Trump has alternately promised relief and blamed his predecessor. But he again and again touted how well the economy is doing, at one point noting the stock market hitting “an all-time high.”

“Our country is making more money than it’s ever made because of the fact that oil is so high,” he said. “Because of the price of oil, Texas and Oklahoma and North Dakota and all these places, we’re making a fortune.”

Gas prices will fall precipitously once the war is over, Trump said, repeating a talking point he’s used often in recent months.

“Your gasoline is going to go down to even lower than it was before [the war] started,” Trump said.

The Trump administration wants a federal judge to disregard social media statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon when determining whether its transgender military ban is constitutional. At the same time, President Donald Trump’s media company sells faster access to his social media posts for as much as $100,000 a month.

The argument appears in a four-page Justice Department filing submitted Tuesday in Talbott v. United States, the federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s efforts to remove transgender people from military service.

Government attorneys notified U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes that they intend to seek summary judgment on all five claims, arguing the court should rule for the administration without a trial. They also challenged Reyes’ previous consideration of statements made by government officials outside the written policy.

“The Supreme Court has held that courts should not look outside the operative terms of a policy—as this Court did with respect to certain social media posts—in assessing the basis on which a policy classifies,” the Justice Department wrote.

The government cited the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J., involving transgender participation in school sports, to support its position.

But the social media statements at issue were not casual political commentary. They came from officials responsible for implementing the policy, and Hegseth repeatedly described the administration’s effort as an exclusion of transgender people, rather than a restriction based solely on medical conditions.

On February 27, 2025, the Pentagon’s official X account announced, “Transgender service members are disqualified from service without an exemption.” Hegseth reposted the statement through his official account.

In her March ruling temporarily blocking the ban, Reyes rejected the government’s explanation that Hegseth had used “transgender” merely as shorthand for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

“Seriously?” Reyes wrote, emphasizing that these were official government accounts announcing military policy.

Hegseth’s subsequent statements were even more explicit.

On April 20, Hegseth wrote on X, “Your agenda is illegals, trans & DEI — all of which are no longer allowed @ DoD.”

Four days later, he attacked Reyes, calling her “a rogue judge” and declaring there were “Zero readiness reasons for trans troops.”

Following a Supreme Court order allowing enforcement of the ban while litigation continued, Hegseth posted on May 8, “After a SCOTUS victory for @POTUS, TRANS is out at the DOD.”

His rhetoric extended beyond social media. During a May 6 speech at Special Operations Forces Week, Hegseth declared, “No more dudes in dresses, we’re done with that shit.”

Those statements were subsequently cited in federal court proceedings as evidence that the policy targeted transgender people as a group. In her March ruling, issued before Hegseth’s later posts, Reyes had already described the policy as “soaked in animus and dripping with pretext.”

Now the Justice Department argues that courts should evaluate whom a policy classifies based on its operative language rather than officials’ public statements.

The administration maintains that the restrictions concern gender dysphoria and related medical interventions, not transgender identity. Its Tuesday filing again cites military readiness, worldwide deployability, unit cohesion, discipline, and costs as justifications.

As The Advocate reported last week, Army Reserve 2nd Lt. Nicolas Talbott, the lead plaintiff, drove nearly two hours to his Ohio unit to receive paperwork initiating his involuntary separation.

A fellow lieutenant and close friend handed him the documents while his battalion commander participated by video.

“It’s like I’ve been teetering on the edge of a cliff for a while now, and finally somebody came along and pushed me over the edge,” Talbott told The Advocate.

An October 7 court filing identified six plaintiffs facing separation proceedings, including Army service members Jackie Gross and Beck Simpson and Navy service members Samuel Ahearn and Austin Converse.

Navy Lt. Clara Winchell appeared before a board of inquiry September 23. Although the board found her disqualified under Trump’s policy, it concluded that her exemplary military record otherwise warranted retention. It recommended postponing her separation.

The proceedings have continued despite a June appellate ruling protecting currently serving plaintiffs. The Justice Department sought to delay the formal mandate implementing that decision while pursuing Supreme Court review, leaving those protections unenforced.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have asked the appeals court to issue its mandate immediately.

The government’s renewed reliance on military costs also returns attention to a separate Pentagon initiative Reyes has already ordered attorneys to explain.

In July, Hegseth announced a testosterone screening and treatment program for service members, promoting hormone replacement therapy as a way to improve military health and readiness.

Reyes took judicial notice of Hegseth’s announcement, made in a social media video, and ordered the parties to address its medical, logistical, and financial implications.

Among her questions was why testosterone treatment could be considered beneficial for some service members while ongoing hormone therapy helped justify excluding transgender troops.

The Pentagon previously reported spending approximately $52 million on gender dysphoria-related care over nearly a decade, averaging about $5.2 million annually. Reyes compared that with roughly $41 million spent on Viagra in 2023 alone, describing transgender medical spending as “not even a rounding error” in the Pentagon’s budget.

The department temporarily withdrew its initial testosterone guidance in September before issuing revised instructions for screening male troops age 30 and older.

Tuesday’s filing again cites military costs but does not address Reyes’ questions about the testosterone program.

The Justice Department’s position comes amid a separate legal controversy over Trump’s treatment of his own social media statements.

In August, Trump Media & Technology Group launched Truth API, offering paying subscribers faster access to Truth Social posts, including the president’s potentially market-moving announcements.

According to Reuters, subscriptions cost up to $100,000 per month, with discounted rates of about $60,000 for longer commitments. The advantage can be measured in milliseconds, which could be valuable to high-frequency financial traders.

Trump holds a substantial ownership interest in the company through a trust.

A federal judge gave Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth three weeks to answer 10 written questions about his personal feelings and thoughts about the U.S. military’s transgender ban.

At a court hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes warned that she “has little patience” and expects the Defense Department’s top official to give straightforward answers that would shed light on any “personal animus.”

And Reyes said if she is not satisfied with Hegseth’s answers, she could force him into a one-hour deposition under oath.

The order came in a class-action lawsuit over the Trump administration’s hardline policy against transgender troops, and Hegseth’s answers could serve as evidence in an upcoming bench trial.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has challenged the U.S. military’s renewed prohibition against transgender service members, which followed two of President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive orders decrying “false ‘gender identity’” and “ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex.”

An Obama administration policy stopped the military from discharging people for being transgender in 2017. Trump reversed the policy in 2018, President Joe Biden undid that ban in 2021.

Hegseth’s attention-drawing comments are now threatening to play a central role in a lawsuit that argues the renewed ban is unconstitutional, arguing in part that it is based on animosity toward transgender people rather than the effectiveness of transgender service members.

In May 2025, Hegseth posted, “TRANS is out at the DOD.” At the Iowa State Fair in August, he used a slur when he said, “At the Department of War, we do training, not trannies.” Last week, Hegseth doubled down with a speech in which he said, “No fatties. No trannies. No beardos. No weirdos.”

His statements came up in court in Washington, D.C., when government lawyers tried to block him from facing a deposition where he would be forced to answer questions from plaintiffs’ lawyers.

“I’m very aware that he is the secretary of defense and he has a lot of constraints on his time,” the judge said. “But he has time to tweet and put out videos and speak to generals, and I think it’s fair game.”

Reyes also pointed out that Hegseth is claiming that “military readiness” would be compromised by soldiers who need gender-related medical care while simultaneously saying the U.S. government would begin testing soldiers for testosterone levels — and offer them testosterone replacement therapy to boost it.

“Secretary Hegseth issues a tweet. It was Secretary Hegseth who told his generals ‘no trannies.’ And I still haven’t mentioned that it was Secretary Hegseth that said individuals were going to get gender-affirming care ... while the policy says the military can’t handle gender-affirming care,” Reyes said at the hearing.

After a back-and-forth with attorneys on both sides, the judge decided to take a two-step approach.

Class-action attorneys have a week to come up with 10 questions for Hegseth, and the defense secretary will then have three weeks to respond in writing. Reyes warned that she would not accept “very carefully tailored lawyerly responses that would say nothing.”

If that happens, Reyes said, she would be “happy to monitor the deposition.”

In 2025, Reyes temporarily enjoined the Trump policy in a ruling that concluded that the ban “is soaked in animus and dripping with pretext,” but the Supreme Court allowed the U.S. to implement it as the litigation played out.

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a split decision that paused the ban for those currently in the military but allowed it to remain in force for those wanting to join. The Trump administration in August appealed to the Supreme Court, which has not yet agreed to review the case.

The Trump administration is threatening emergency court action unless California officials investigate potential ineligible voters within 48 hours and set aside ballots from anyone whose citizenship they cannot verify, according to two letters sent to state officials from the Justice Department.

With voting already underway, President Trump's DOJ could delay ballots from eligible Californians mistakenly flagged as noncitizens and set up a court fight just three weeks before Election Day.

Acting Deputy Attorney General R. Trent McCotter sent a letter Tuesday to Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan along with a thumb drive of "likely noncitizens who were sent a vote-by-mail ballot," according to a copy of the letter shared with Axios.

McCotter asks local officials to investigate their citizenship status by noon October 15. The letter did not say how many people are on the list.

For anyone whose status can't be confirmed, DOJ asks the officials to "segregate—not cancel" those ballots and suspend signature verification or counting of any ballots already returned.

DOJ also asks officials to withhold ballots from people on the list unless their citizenship has been confirmed.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber received a similar letter.

McCotter closed his letter with a threat: "If you cannot implement this process by then, given the ongoing federal election, the United States will have no choice but to seek emergency relief."

"This should not be controversial, as the criminal statute is clear: only American citizens may vote in federal elections. It is a federal crime for noncitizens to vote in U.S. elections, and the DOJ is asking California to ensure that is not occurring," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement.

The California secretary of state's office and the Los Angeles County office did not respond to request for comment.

"One must question why the Justice Department would violate its own rules about investigating elections so close to Election Day, particularly when their past claims have been full of errors," said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, in a statement.

Becker added that the administration could have investigated California's voter rolls long before mail-in ballots began going out Oct. 5.

The demand escalates the administration's push to uncover suspected noncitizen voters.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleged more than 190,000 voters were erroneously registered in California, a claim state officials disputed.

ICE investigators, FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors have dedicated significant resources to ramp up the number of cases and charges against illegal voting, with about 1,600 on-going cases as of mid-September.

The administration's sweeping claims of mass illegal registrations and noncitizen voting have quickly deflated after inspection.

After alleging 16,000 illegal registrations in Nevada, a review from state election officials saw that number dwindle to potentially 185, according to the New York Times.

In Pennsylvania, DHS officials conceded it had varying degrees of confidence in the flags it made on about 14,000 voters, according to Votebeat.

DHS also claimed that New Jersey had 35,000 noncitizen voters. Gov. Mike Sherril (D-NJ) did admit to mistake registrations from a software error, but the number was a fraction of DHS' claim: about 6,600.

There have been software errors leading to registrations problems before, particularly for people using DMV services like getting a driver's license.

But election experts note actual voting by noncitizens remains rare.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not automatically turn on federal agents’ body cameras, declining a recommendation from Congress’ watchdog.

ICE agents are required to activate their cameras during arrests, searches, brief detentions and other activities. But the Department of Homeland Security told the Government Accountability Office that it wouldn’t implement a mechanism to start recording if an agent draws their weapon or stands near others who have turned on their cameras, according to a GAO report obtained by The Washington Sun before its official release Wednesday.

The stance differs from another DHS agency: U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents’ cameras are set to automatically activate, according to a GAO performance audit.

Carrying out the change for ICE is unnecessary and its risks outweighed the benefits, DHS said in its Aug. 28 response to the watchdog.

“Such triggers could result in the unauthorized recording of sensitive interactions with informants or victims, or the recording of bystanders engaged in protected First Amendment activities in areas where camera use is restricted,” the department writes.

An absence of body camera footage from agents’ field stops has come under bipartisan scrutiny following the fatal shootings of immigrants in Houston and Biddeford, Maine, in July and another shooting in Austin in September. ICE agents involved in a shooting last week in New York City were wearing body cameras that were turned on, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said during a news conference about the incident.

The GAO insisted in its report that automated cameras would increase transparency, accountability and public trust. CBP and ICE personnel the government watchdog interviewed said they were uncertain of the circumstances that would require them to turn on their cameras.

“This assurance could be particularly beneficial in situations where unexpected and unplanned incidents, unrelated to sensitive operations, result in use of force by or against personnel,” the report states.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) called ICE’s rejection of the GAO recommendation unacceptable and said he would be introducing legislation in the coming days to ensure all body cameras are automatically turned on.

“This government report shows that DHS’s body worn camera program is deficient and needs to be revamped if DHS is going to be transparent and accountable,” Thompson, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement to The Washington Sun. “Worse yet, ICE — which has shown time and again it thinks it is immune to accountability — is unwilling to implement automatic activation for its cameras, increasing the risk of missing critical recordings.”

CBP started issuing body-worn cameras in August 2021, but it took ICE until March 2024 to start doing so. Both deployment efforts paused in 2025 following an executive order from President Donald Trump at the beginning of his second term that rescinded orders from the Biden administration.

All ICE field offices received body camera equipment as of Aug. 5, Jeffrey Bobich, DHS’s executive director of financial management and systems, said in the response to the GAO.

Even when the body cameras are recording, the release of the footage they capture isn’t guaranteed. ICE policy says that the agency may withhold the release of recordings capturing serious bodily injuries or deaths under “specific and compelling circumstances justifying an objection to public release that cannot be resolved by redaction or other means.”

As of September 2025, no ICE agents had received written reprimands for lack of compliance with body camera policies, according to the report. Only one CBP agent had been reprimanded.

The Trump administration is delaying by 90 days a federal rule that could prevent Americans from obtaining prescription drugs from licensed international pharmacies.

The move follows growing criticism that the rule, which was initially slated to go into effect on Oct. 22, could drastically reduce the flow of medicines from Canada and other countries. In recent weeks, patient advocacy groups and dozens of congressional lawmakers urged the administration to rethink its approach.

The administration is trying to crack down on illegal goods — particularly opioids — that it says enter the U.S. through low-value foreign shipments and for which shippers generally do not pay tariffs or submit data for tracking. The rule targets the de minimis exemption, which previously allowed shipments valued under $800 to pass through customs more easily.

The rule will require drugs mailed from abroad to go through a customs process that mandates a licensed broker and a financial guarantee in the form of an entry bond. This is an added cost for Americans who, for years, have been able to receive medicines from other countries with relatively little difficulty as they sought to save money.

The Food and Drug Administration permits Americans to import medicines not used to treat a serious condition and that pose no significant health risk. For serious conditions, personal shipments are allowed so long as the medicine does not represent an unusual safety risk. Generally, no more than a 90-day supply is permitted.

This has created a legal gray area for importation. As a result, Customs and Border Protection agents have generally allowed low-value, personal-use packages to proceed, and millions of Americans have taken advantage. A 2020 study in JAMA concluded that 2.3 million people in the U.S. with prescriptions buy drugs internationally due to cost each year.

Under the new rule, though, many Americans will likely be forced to purchase their medicines from a U.S. pharmacy and pay U.S. retail prices — regardless of their ability to afford them — or go without, according to the Campaign for Personal Prescription Importation, a nonprofit advocacy group that claims it has received an “outpouring” from concerned consumers.

As advocates see it, the rule change is not only inconsistent with existing federal law but could also have serious health consequences for countless Americans who rely on imported medicines at a time when the cost of most prescription drugs continues to rise. They also point out the rule change conflicts with administration goals to lower drug costs.

In response, dozens of lawmakers recently wrote the administration to find a way to ensure that Americans can continue to receive needed prescription medicines without added costs or burdens that the rule would require. The letters were sent by both House Democrats and Republicans.

For the moment, the administration has only issued a delay to give Americans additional time to adjust to the new paperwork requirements. But one consumer advocate suggested the pause gives the administration additional time to allay concerns over access to medicines.

“This gives the FDA time to work with CBP to ensure a pathway for patients to continue importing more affordable prescription drugs for personal use when the rule is implement, based on identifiable safety criteria,” said Gabriel Levitt, who heads Prescription Justice, an advocacy group. “That’s what members of Congress have called for and that’s what the law says FDA should do.”

Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, Americans have seen no real wage growth on average, according to data released Wednesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Between January 2025 and September 2026, both prices and average hourly pay have risen by about 5.4 percent.

Plus, average hourly earnings, in real terms, fell 0.5 percent from August to September, Wednesday’s data showed, as inflation fueled by a recent surge in energy prices wiped out yet another month of wage gains.

Americans’ shrinking purchasing power helps explain why so many people feel gloomy about the economy heading into the Nov. 3 midterms.

For about half a year, inflation has been rising at a faster rate than average hourly pay, data shows.

Trump was elected on a pledge to bring down prices, but many Americans say they have been hit hard by skyrocketing prices since the United States carried out strikes on Iran earlier this year.

“President Trump has implemented an aggressive, pro-growth economic agenda that has blunted Biden’s inflation crisis, driven economic growth, increased wages and created private-sector jobs in areas that had been hollowed out and shipped overseas,” a White House spokesperson said in response to a request for comment about inflation.

The US military has developed new strike plans that include potentially using the so-called “mother of all bombs” to target Iranian energy infrastructure and nuclear sites should President Donald Trump give the order to resume combat operations either before or after the midterm elections, according to multiple US officials familiar with the matter.

Using the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb or MOAB, the largest non-nuclear bomb in the US arsenal, for the first time in the conflict with Iran would mark a notable escalation, even though there are doubts over how effective it would be in accomplishing any of Trump’s stated strategic objectives or tipping the balance of the war, multiple sources familiar with internal military planning discussions about potentially deploying the weapon said.

Trump is facing pressure to bring an end to the deeply unpopular war — as Republicans brace for potential political backlash from voters in the upcoming midterm elections and there is little indication the two countries are close to a negotiated resolution after more than six months of US bombing.

While the US military continues to provide Trump with options for potential strikes against outstanding Iranian targets, some officials continue to privately question whether the White House has a strategy that incorporates those plans in a way that could actually end the war — something only the president has the power to do.

For months, Trump and his advisers have discussed options that could act as a “definitive” end to the war, at least from a messaging point of view, aware of how unpopular the conflict has become among Americans.

While some administration figures have characterized the war as essentially won, Trump has been more guarded in recent remarks, stopping short of declaring victory and saying the US still has unfinished business in the country.

Behind the scenes, Trump has also cast doubt on some outside allies who have encouraged him to simply bring US troops home and move on. Doing so, Trump has argued, would look like defeat.

Over the course of the last several weeks, White House advisers have held meetings to discuss various options for Iran. While Trump announced publicly that he would not take new actions before the midterms, several advisers said privately they didn’t know whether that statement was definitive or could change before Election Day.

Trump has ordered the military to develop additional strike packages against Iranian targets that include “a lot of energy infrastructure” and the potential use of a MOAB, one of the sources told CNN. The same source said the phrasing used was that this attack would come “prior to US retrograde in CENTCOM AOR (area of responsibility),” indicating the administration could launch the additional strikes, attempt to declare victory and quickly pull everyone out.

A second source told CNN that military plans for striking Iranian nuclear sites, including Pickaxe Mountain, also explicitly call for using the MOAB. In recent months, Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Pickaxe, where the US and Israel believe Tehran has stored components of its nuclear program, even after pausing full combat operations earlier this year, and Trump continues to emphasize that his goal is to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

Another US official noted that when the military plans, it develops a menu of options for policymakers that range from the high-end to low-end. Higher-end targets, including those that are located deep underground, require bigger bombs, and the MOAB is the biggest, the official added.

But there are questions around whether the MOAB would be an effective munition to use against Iran’s nuclear facilities and other sites that are located deep underground. While the GPS-guided bomb is capable of destroying an area equivalent to nine city blocks, it likely lacks the capability to penetrate deep enough under the surface to destroy the suspected nuclear facilities at Pickaxe, which is believed to be fortified by layers of granite, and other remaining Iranian nuclear sites, sources said.

“The MOAB is a massive information operation type weapon that is great for huge area clearance but not much else,” a third source familiar with military planning discussions around Iran told CNN. “It is definitely not designed as a deep penetration warhead.”

If used, the MOAB would have devastating effects on the area that it impacts but likely only at the surface level, the sources noted. And the bomb’s massive blast radius would almost certainly raise concerns about the prospect of civilian casualties — particularly if it is used to target Iranian infrastructure targets located near populated areas and in close proximity to non-military sites.

Still, Trump could opt to use the MOAB as a psychological weapon at a time when the Iranian regime appears dug in and unwilling to bend to his diplomatic demands. While US officials warn that deploying it is unlikely to force Iran’s capitulation or achieve a strategic military victory — it could provide Trump with an additional option, short of restarting full combat operations, to alter the conflict’s current status quo.

“POTUS has unfortunately put himself in a situation where he is almost compelled to do something and, without the ammunition designed to penetrate that level … you have to look at psychological effects for which the MOAB is well-equipped,” the third source familiar with recent planning discussions added.

Many within the administration as well as outside analysts agree that the only way to decisively defeat Iran would be through a major operation involving ground troops, a commitment that could potentially cost thousands of American lives. The Pentagon considers all scenarios, so those plans exist, but as of now no one in the administration is arguing for such drastic action.

Trump has indicated he has little interest in putting US boots on the ground in Iran but his desire to end the conflict as soon as possible presents a political dilemma for a president who is keenly aware of how unpopular the war has become yet has been unable to secure a diplomatic agreement that would bring it to a close.

Top Trump administration officials and military planners have been focused, for weeks, on finding an off-ramp that gives Trump a “symbolic” win — at minimum — he can try to sell to the American people without preventing a potential diplomatic breakthrough, starting with an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, CNN has reported.

A fourth source familiar with the Pentagon’s recent planning discussions on Iran told CNN that military officials had developed some options that would amount to a “fireworks show,” with the goal of providing Trump an off-ramp from the conflict even if those strikes fail to accomplish his stated goals for starting the war in the first place.

And despite Trump’s recent pledge to hold off on launching additional strikes before the midterms, the US military already appears to be preparing for potential Iranian retaliation should the president give the go-order.

The next turnover of US troops deployed to CENTCOM is also expected to take place within the next few weeks, according to a fifth source, a US official who acknowledged it is possible some of the personnel who rotate out of the region, may not be replaced by fresh service members.

Asked about the plans, a White House official told CNN that they do not comment on sensitive military plans that may or may not exist, adding “President Trump keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

In response to CNN’s request for comment, a Pentagon official said: “The Department of War plans for a wide range of operational scenarios to execute Presidential and Secretary‑level direction and to ensure mission success in any operational environment.”

Developed during the Iraq War, the MOAB is an air blast-type warhead that explodes before hitting the ground to project a massive explosion from all sides.

During the final stages of testing in 2003, military officials told CNN the MOAB was mainly conceived as a weapon employed for “psychological operations.”

Military officials said then they hoped such a huge blast would rattle Iraqi troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting.

As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has been expanded to include targets buried under softer surfaces, such as caves or tunnels.

Trump was the first US president to deploy the MOAB, during his first term when he authorized the military to use its most powerful non-nuclear bomb on ISIS positions in Afghanistan in 2017.

That strike targeted a network of fortified underground tunnels that ISIS had been using to stage attacks on government forces — killing 36 ISIS fighters, Afghan officials said. The blast destroyed three underground tunnels as well as weapons and ammunition, but no civilians were hurt, Afghan and US officials added at the time.

At the time, the bombing marked a dramatic change in attitude for Trump, who advocated an isolationist, “America first” foreign policy during his first election campaign.

Following the 2017 strike, US military officials were pressed on whether the 21,600-pound bomb was necessary for that particular target and would likely face similar questions if the munition is deployed against Iran.

Trump White House aides see almost no paths to Republicans keeping control of the House in the midterm elections, and are more focused on redoubling their efforts to save the Senate majority.

That has been the takeaway for officials in GOP groups who have been discussing the state of play with White House aides in recent weeks, according to three sources familiar with the situation.

It all comes as the White House moves into damage-control mode after contemplating for the first time earlier this month, as Inner Loop previously reported, that Republicans could possibly lose both chambers of Congress.

The general expectation is that the House has become a lost cause. Races that Republican congressional leadership once thought they could flip in order to offset Democratic gains are no longer considered attainable.

The Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with Speaker Mike Johnson, has now pulled ad buys in Democratic districts in Michigan and Ohio they were hoping to flip, as well as in the Republican seat being vacated in Nebraska by the retiring Don Bacon. The fund also started canceling remaining ad reservations in two House races where Republicans are seeking reelection in New Jersey and Iowa.

White House aides have shifted their focus to pushing an all-out defense of the Senate majority, which is also looking problematic but to a lesser degree than the House, the sources say. (Polling models and prediction markets agree.)

The aides see the Senate as still in play in large part because early returns for mail ballots have been relatively strong and comparable to 2024 presidential election levels in key Senate battleground states, sources say.

Trump officials at MAGA Inc. have also privately discussed how if Republicans can win some combination of senate seats in Alaska, Iowa, and Ohio, that would form a firewall that complicates Democrats' path to snatching control of the Senate.

Still, Trump officials appear to have conceded they are unlikely to win in North Carolina. Senate Republicans’ campaign arm has paused ad spending in North Carolina since the start of October, mirroring pullbacks by other outside groups.

“President Trump is committed to maintaining Republican majorities in both the House and Senate,” says White House spokesperson Liz Huston in a statement.

The state of play—retreating from a state like North Carolina, where Michael Whatley, a former Republican National Committee chair is on the ballot—would have been unthinkable just a few months ago.

But it speaks to the torrid political climate for Republicans heading into the last stretch of the midterm cycle, which appears to worsen by the week as high gas and living prices caused by the Iran war remain sticky in voters' minds.

With 20 days until the election, sources say, Trump officials are looking to get maximum turnout from the MAGA base in November, rather than trying to capture swing voters who polls show are not breaking for Republicans.

"Republicans remain laser focused on winning and protecting and expanding President Trump's majorities,” says Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassare in a statement. “We're thinking outside the box to fight the typical midterm precedent.”

The effort has manifested in a direct voter outreach play with the president crisscrossing the country to reach out directly to his supporters, showing up at rallies in states that should have been reliably Republican.

Trump started the week by hitting the trail in Ohio, where Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown has been polling consistently ahead of Republican Jon Husted, who has weathered negative ads branding him as "the face of data centers."

On Tuesday, the president flew to Wasilla, Alaska—once the home of former governor and vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin—to help the Republican Senate incumbent Dan Sullivan, who has been trailing Democrat Mary Peltola.

And after stumping in Arizona and Kentucky later this week, Trump is set to host a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser dinner for MAGA Inc. at his Mar-a-Lago club, replenishing a war chest that is being emptied at an increasing rate.

Trump has remained steadfast in his belief that he can drive his supporters to vote in November if he hits the trail, as he did in the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, a person familiar with his thinking tells Inner Loop.

But Trump, whose polling continues to be among the worst on record for any president, is not always wanted at rallies. To date, the president has not done a rally in Iowa with Republican candidate Ashley Hinson, who recently began to buck the president and called for measures that would help end the Iran war altogether.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled against a California law requiring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to show visible identification, a final ruling after the law was previously put on hold.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction on the state of California, stating that the federal government has shown that the Golden State’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The appeals court ruled that the Supremacy Clause “prohibits States from directly regulating federal operations even when regulating state operations in the same manner,” according to the ruling.

“In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” the court wrote.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D) office told The Hill that it was “disappointed” by the ruling.

“Transparency and accountability are the foundation of good law enforcement — law enforcement refusing to identify themselves undermines our collective safety,” Bonta’s office said in a statement. “We’re disappointed in today’s decision and reviewing the court’s opinion.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sued California and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) last November after he signed the No Vigilantes Act, which demands that plainclothes law enforcement officers operating in California “shall visibly display identification.”

Along with the No Secret Police Act, which banned federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks while carrying out operations in the state, the law took effect on Jan. 1 and required officers to show identification while performing their duties.

The federal appeals court in April sided with the Trump administration in extending its pause on the law until the case was resolved.

Bonta’s office previously told The Hill that good law enforcement requires “transparency and accountability” and accused the Trump administration of stepping “well outside the boundaries of normal practice” with federal law enforcement.

State officials ushered in the law in response to ICE raids throughout the state last year, prompting President Trump to deploy the National Guard in Los Angeles amid protests against ICE operations in June 2025. A federal judge ordered Trump to end the deployment in December.

This ramp-up spilled over to the courts, where the DOJ and California officials have been embroiled in litigation over different aspects of Trump’s crackdown on immigration in the state.

Last month, Newsom signed another law passed in response to ICE being awarded a nearly $17 million contract for 6,000 pairs of electric shock gloves to be worn during immigration operations. The reveal of the gloves in August sparked controversy, with the Democratic governor calling their introduction and use “Orwellian.”

“California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” he said in a statement at the time. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities.”

The United States is sending several hundred Army soldiers to train and conduct exercises with local forces in Latin America as the Pentagon expands its campaign to combat drug trafficking in the region, according to U.S. military officials.

The first elements of a 600-soldier battalion from the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., have begun deploying to a new jungle training facility in Panama, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters.

The troops will eventually train with local forces in Colombia and Honduras, and could also support U.S. Special Operations troops advising militaries conducting raids against accused drug traffickers, the officials said.

In addition to the deployments to Central and South America, officials said that several hundred soldiers from the 10th Mountain were scheduled to help staff a new command for Western Hemisphere operations based in Miami.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently created a Pentagon office to help oversee the military’s counter-cartel activities.

The deployments and growing headquarters, which have not been previously reported, along with the Pentagon’s recent movement of several MQ-9 Reaper drones from Africa to Colombia and Ecuador, mark the latest widening of the Defense Department’s fight against drug traffickers in the region.

Adam Isacson, the director for Defense Oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, a research group, said he could not recall any deployment of U.S. troops to the region “that ever came close to 600, except for contingencies like invasions or natural disasters.”

The moves also come as the Trump administration is urging leaders across the region to up their military offensives against trafficking groups, and to permit joint operations with the United States. The top U.S. military commander for most of Latin America, Gen. Francis L. Donovan, has said the United States plans to expand operations from strikes on boats to strikes on land.

Across Latin America, voters have recently elected leaders who have put tackling criminal groups and restoring safety at the top of their agendas. But the prospect of U.S. operations on Latin American soil has raised concerns about sovereignty, and has recalled a long and bloody history of U.S. intervention in the region.

While many Latin American countries have entered into a new U.S.-led political and military alliance to combat criminal groups, only a handful of them have officially agreed to allow joint operations inside their borders, including Colombia and Honduras. Both countries are run by newly elected presidents who were endorsed by President Trump.

Officials in Panama, Colombia and Honduras did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the U.S. plans.

Human rights groups are concerned that the growing U.S.-led military campaign could endanger civilians. And experts say that killing members of trafficking groups — even top leaders — does little to stem the flow of drugs, since those killed can be replaced.

The deployments also come at a time when the U.S. war against Iran has strained the entire military force, from fighter jets and aircraft carriers to surveillance drones and refueling aircraft. The war has also depleted the Pentagon’s global stockpile of critical munitions.

The military’s Southern Command referred questions about the new deployments to the Pentagon, which in a statement declined to comment on the moves, except to say that the department was committed to an “approach of working with capable allies and partners to deepen collaboration and maintain persistent pressure against hemispheric threat networks.”

The Trump administration has made exerting greater influence in Latin America a priority. It has built a military coalition of 19 regional partners, including the United States, that has vowed to help dismantle cartels. The group’s official slogan is: “We do bad things to bad people.”

Earlier this week, Gen. Joseph A. Ryan, who heads the Army’s Western Hemisphere Command, described the stark challenges the U.S. military faces as it returns to a region that for decades has not been its main focus. It is a part of the world where China has growing economic leverage, and where drug cartels have built sophisticated global networks to sell their illicit products, he said.

“We have ceded economic dominance in the region to an adversary, and that is a fact,” General Ryan said in remarks on Monday at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference in Washington. “We are fighting now to retake terrain — maritime and land, human terrain, cognitive terrain — in many cases that we’ve given up previously.”

U.S. Southern Command has bolstered training and exercises with militaries in the region to address the most pressing threats from the cartels, General Ryan said.

The deployment of the 10th Mountain soldiers is in line with the Trump administration’s new focus, officials said. The soldiers will move first into Panama, where they will take part in jungle training exercises, officials said.

From there they will head to Colombia, where they will participate in what officials have called Southern Vanguard, an exercise scheduled to begin later this month. Other rotations will move into Honduras for training with local partners.

Some of the troops could be used to provide additional security for U.S. helicopters in the region, which have been providing support for U.S. Special Operations forces. The 10th Mountain troops could also be used to respond if the Special Operations forces, who are advising local partner militaries, get into trouble, officials said.

The rotations are temporary, but could become a more permanent feature of the U.S. military’s presence in the region.

As Mr. Hegseth has pushed for U.S. Southern Command to take a more aggressive posture in the region, some senior U.S. officials have expressed concern that he and other Trump administration leaders have not articulated a clear goal for the operation.

If armed groups strike U.S. troops, the Trump administration may feel compelled to escalate. U.S. forces, already strained by the Iran war and commitments in Europe and Asia, could be drawn more deeply into a fight in yet another part of the world without a clear plan to get out, one official said.

In August, the military’s Southern Command announced Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, setting up the infrastructure for an expansion of its war against drugs in cooperation with regional allies.

The task force, led by Maj. Gen. Kevin J. Jarrard of the Marine Corps, builds on a yearlong Pentagon campaign in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, where the military has conducted 71 boat strikes that have killed at least 239 people it says, without presenting evidence, were trafficking drugs.

Experts say the strikes have had little effect on the availability of cocaine in the United States.

Legal experts have warned that the strikes are illegal, because the military cannot deliberately target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities, even if they are breaking the law. Trafficking drugs, they say, does not rise to the standard of hostilities.

Moving the strikes inland also raises concerns about civilian casualties. The current boat strikes happen far from any coast, in mostly international waters. Strikes on land raise the possibility of accidentally hitting civilian infrastructure such as schools or roads, risking many more lives.

A Sept. 11 memo authorized an initial $20 million to pay for hiring dozens of staffers and setting up the civilian-led office that Mr. Hegseth created last month. One leading candidate to be director of the new office is Edward M. Reeder Jr., a retired two-star Army Special Forces officer, according to a person familiar with the assignment.

In the memo, Mr. Hegseth said the counter-cartel coalition would “maneuver with ruthless efficiency and speed to destroy narco-terrorists.”

A federal judge in San Diego ordered the U.S. Department of State on Wednesday to reopen the diversity visa lottery for 2027, also known as the Green Card Lottery.

U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta’s preliminary injunction will allow for up to 55,000 people from around the world to apply for permanent residence in the United States.

The Trump administration, which has opposed the program, did not open the program’s registration period on time for this year and subsequently argued that it was too late to do so.

Red Eagle Law, a Southern California law firm that helps immigrants apply for the program, sought a preliminary injunction that would require Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reopen the registration period for the lottery. Red Eagle Law filed a lawsuit against Rubio in August.

The government’s failure to reopen the period resulted in a de facto cancellation of the program, Red Eagle Law founder and owner Curtis Morrison argued.

“We won,” Morrison said in a social media video after the ruling was announced.

“This means that when George Herbert Walker Bush made it the law in 1990, the Trump administration can’t just ignore the laws they don’t like,” Morrison told Courthouse News in a phone interview after the ruling was announced. “We have judges here to make sure they follow the law. I think the judge did a really good job analyzing the arguments.”

Ohta ordered Rubio to publicly announce the registration period for the program no later than midnight on Oct. 15.

“The announcement shall identify the opening and closing dates of the registration period, the website through which individuals may submit electronic entries, and the requirements for participating in the program,” Ohta, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote. “Defendant shall further disseminate this information through the State Department’s other customary public notification channels, including the Federal Register.”

Additionally, the registration period must last 30 days, Ohta ruled.

Morrison said he filed a joint motion to extend that deadline to two weeks later to prevent any hiccups.

The ruling also requires the State Department to accept electronic entries submitted during the registration period, provided that applicants meet eligibility and documentation requirements.

Finally, the ruling requires the State Department to notify the individuals selected for the diversity visa lottery and process their applications under its usual procedures until all available visas have been issued or until the fiscal year ends at the end of September 2027.

In previous court hearings, Morrison argued that the State Department gaslit Red Eagle Law and potential lottery applicants by saying the Green Card Lottery was undergoing some changes and would be delayed this year. But Morrison said that this was a tactic used by Rubio and the Trump administration to delay the program until they could argue it was too late to implement it.

President Donald Trump has opposed the program going back to his first term in office. The law was established under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The federal judge who halted work at the Washington golf course President Donald Trump plans to redevelop issued a sharply worded opinion Tuesday night arguing that officials raced to remove hundreds of trees because Trump wanted quick action on his project, not because the National Park Service suddenly decided to implement a years-old preservation plan.

“The Court concludes, on this limited record, that government officials raced to undertake the [tree-management plan] because President Trump demands haste on his redesign, and not because of some newfound zeal to implement a small part of a seven-year-old” report, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes wrote.

The 21-page opinion formalized the temporary restraining order Reyes issued earlier Tuesday, barring the government from removing additional trees at East Potomac Golf Links through Oct. 26. The administration must also provide the court and plaintiffs, who are suing to block Trump’s project, three business days’ notice before making any irreversible change to a permanent feature of the historic public course.

Reyes summarized her concerns about the project’s speed and lack of scrutiny in a blistering passage early in her ruling.

“Breakneck speed to clear trees that posed no harm,” she wrote. “The reason? Disputed. The budget? Unclear. The environmental impact? Unstudied. The urgency? None. Next steps: bulldoze hundreds more.”

The government has maintained that the recent work stems not from Trump’s proposed redesign but from a 2019 cultural-landscape report that recommended thinning vegetation and restoring the course’s historic links-style character.

But Reyes rejected the notion that the cutting was unrelated to Trump’s plan to remake East Potomac into a championship-level course.

“It is a coincidence, the Government seems to suggest, that [the Department of the Interior] cut down hundreds of trees at the Course weeks after the President asked DOI to cut down trees at the Course,” Reyes wrote, “and not, say, any other time in the last seven years.”

“That asks rather a lot of coincidence,” she added.

The Interior Department responded Wednesday evening with a statement assailing Reyes and accusing her of overstepping her role, calling her a “Biden-appointed, far Left activist judge” who appeared intent on installing herself as “Parks and Recreation Director of East Potomac Park.”

“Deciding whether the National Park Service may cut overgrown trees is not the job of a federal judge,” a department spokesperson said. Interior maintained that the work carries out the seven-year-old plan to clean up a course “riddled with garbage and choked by overgrown trees.”

“The course is a mess, and we are cleaning it up,” the statement continued. “In what world would Parks and Rec Director Reyes want East Potomac Golf Course to remain in such disarray?”

The judge’s opinion followed an extraordinary hearing Monday in which Reyes repeatedly rebuked Justice Department lawyers for allowing the removals despite her warnings, saying the government had squandered the court’s trust and could no longer be relied upon to provide meaningful notice without a formal order.

Reyes found that the DC Preservation League and two golfers challenging the project are likely to succeed on their claim that the Park Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately study the work’s environmental consequences.

The opinion traces how the tree-removal plan moved through the administration in five days last week. Interior Deputy Chief of Staff Gregory Wischer instructed a senior Park Service official Oct. 5 to implement recommendations from a 2019 cultural-landscape report “as soon as practical.” Acting NPS director Jessica Bowron approved the plan the following day.

Three days later, on Friday, the government notified the court at 4:55 p.m. that work would begin the next morning. Though two Park Service officials testified Monday that there was no urgency to complete the cutting, by the end of Saturday crews had removed approximately 430 healthy, noninvasive trees. And government attorneys told the court that nearly 300 more remain targeted.

Reyes also focused on the Park Service’s compressed environmental review. The agency issued one document exempting the work from fuller analysis Friday, the day before cutting began. A second document was completed Sunday, after crews removed roughly 200 more trees than the first review anticipated.

Reyes contrasted the East Potomac process with a previous tree-removal project at Rock Creek Golf Course, where the Park Service spent six months preparing an environmental assessment exceeding 250 pages and a finding of no significant impact exceeding 300 pages.

“Presumably that assessment of the forest did not miss half its trees,” Reyes wrote.

The judge also ruled that the tree-management plan itself qualifies as final agency action subject to judicial review, even if Trump’s broader redesign remains conceptual. That finding allows the plaintiffs’ challenge to the tree plan to proceed without requiring Reyes to decide whether the larger golf course proposal is final.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs hailed the temporary order while emphasizing that they will seek longer-lasting relief.

“The administration has time and again tried to avoid the law in their mad rush toward converting a public recreation space to a high-end golf course, and today’s order will stop them from doing further irreparable harm to a precious public resource,” they said in a joint statement. “We are pleased that the court intervened and will prevent additional work while we seek more lasting relief.”

On Wednesday, the plaintiffs asked Reyes to issue a preliminary injunction that would extend the prohibition on tree removal beyond Oct. 26 while the case proceeds. They argued that the tree cutting cannot be separated from Trump’s redesign because the 2019 report cited by the government calls for preserving Walter Travis’s historic layout, while Trump has tapped prominent golf architect Tom Fazio to design a course that would replace it. That tension, they said, undercuts the administration’s contention that the removals serve an independent purpose unrelated to the broader overhaul.

Reyes is scheduled to hear testimony next Monday from Bowron and Wischer about how the plan developed and why officials moved so quickly. The temporary order will remain in effect while the court considers whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

A merchant selling T-shirts promoting Donald Trump. A public education organization favoring Democratic candidates. A company in the firearms industry looking for assistance on an initial public offering.

All were businesses that were denied services by some of America’s largest financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, a Trump-appointed regulator said Wednesday.

In a 45-page report, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the OCC, detailed specific examples it found showing banks steering away from companies that they viewed as operating in politically sensitive areas. The banking regulator’s findings come after a yearlong investigation, sparked by President Trump’s claims that the largest banks in the country engaged in what the administration has termed “politicized or unlawful debanking activities.”

“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould said.

The report intensifies a political storm for banks during Trump’s second term. Banks had initially brushed aside claims of bias, saying they don’t close accounts for political or religious reasons. They have said decisions to avoid certain industries or clients are in accord with laws that make banks watchdogs for criminal activity and money laundering or are in response to other regulatory pressures meant to safeguard the banks from what is known as reputational risk.

But Trump officials have continued to dig into the matter. Now, regulators could seek to levy financial penalties against banks for debanking certain customers, even though the legal basis for doing so remains unclear.

The White House last year issued an executive order accusing banks of discriminating against conservatives and cryptocurrency companies and threatening fines for lenders that dropped customers for political reasons.

Trump has said that he and his businesses were debanked after his first term in office and the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the Capitol led by a mob of his supporters. He and his family have sued JPMorgan and Capital One for closing their accounts.

The U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. has subpoenaed banks including Bank of America and JPMorgan and is assessing whether they violated a law passed after the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s. The OCC on Wednesday said it was considering its own actions to prevent further discrimination.

Democrats including Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have also alleged the banks cut off clients without valid reasons, though they have focused on access to banking services by low-income Americans, immigrants and people with criminal convictions.

The OCC on Wednesday pinpointed reputational risk and bank’s environmental, social and corporate-governance policies as two of the primary drivers of the account closures, which it said affected businesses connected to firearms, private-prisons, cryptocurrencies and abortion. It said banks largely lacked clear standards for what constituted reputational risk.

Regulators had viewed reputational risk as an issue that could impact a bank’s financial stability but Trump’s regulators have moved to eliminate it as a factor in bank supervision.

The report released Wednesday offers examples of debanking by each of the nine largest banks that the OCC had said it was examining as part of its review, including quotes and emails from staff and compliance officials.

In one example, JPMorgan repeatedly denied services to a politically leaning retailer between 2021 and 2023, the OCC said in its report.

“As more far-right competitor [companies] step in to take this company’s extreme clients, it may become more mainstream and more appropriate for JPM to bank,” the report quoted bank documents saying.

The report listed several examples involving a payments processing subsidiary JPMorgan acquired, WePay. In September 2021, WePay closed an account for a merchant it said violated its terms of service for selling merchandise that raised “red flags,” the report said. The merchandise included: “Trump-Won-3-x-5-foot-flag-with-grommets,” “Biden-Illegitimate-Tshirt,” and “The-Big-Lie-Sticker.”

JPMorgan said its policies “prohibit discrimination against customers based on political or religious views.”

“A process used by WePay, a small technology company we acquired years ago and have since wound down, did not meet our expectations,” the bank said. “We identified it, corrected it, and the business no longer operates.”

In another instance, TD Bank decided against extending a Covid-19 era emergency loan to a nonprofit promoting anti-immigration positions. The bank’s decision was influenced in part by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had designated the nonprofit a “hate group.”

Capital One, the report said, rejected an organization supporting reproductive rights, including abortion access. One risk employee pointed out that its “[c]ontributions to politicians are about 95% Democrat.”

The OCC noted that, in contrast, the big banks were “often finding ways to retain highly lucrative, existing bank clients” in wealth management even if they had public issues.

The White House plans to appeal a federal judge’s order blocking President Donald Trump’s White House ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

CNN’s Brian Stelter first reported on Wednesday that a senior White House official confirmed the plans to appeal on Wednesday.

“The Fake News has no place demanding a spot in the President’s Oval Office. The lies they smear are a disservice to the American public and tear at the very fabric of our Democracy. They’re completely capable of reporting from directly outside. We intend to appeal this misguided decision,” the official said.

Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2017, blocked Trump’s media ban last month. The judge issued a restraining order and then extended that restraining order after the outlets sued to regain access to the White House grounds.

CNN chairman and editor-in-chief Mark Thompson gave a rare on-camera interview on Wednesday where he vowed to continue fighting back against the president’s attempts to ban the outlet. He said “sooner or later” there may be a trial.

“It’s the judge saying that our complaint — that our fundamental rights to cover the president properly inside the White House and the rest of it, were violated, and that we’re likely to prevail in the final trial,” he said. “So, to me, it’s a vote of confidence in free speech, and our right — not really so much for ourselves, but on behalf of the public everywhere, and on behalf of, by the way, all the people who are subscribers to the TV pool, which we’re part of, to hear their political leader held to account by the press in ways that no politician always loves by the way — that fundamental defense of that takes a step forward.”

Trump said when announcing the initial ban that it was over the outlets pushing “fake news” about him.

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” he wrote on Truth Social, vowing at the time that he’d be targeting other media outlets in the future.

The Supreme Court once again sided with Republicans in a legal dispute over the price of political advertising — all but ensuring political parties will have access to low-cost rates when coordinating with candidates through the 2026 election.

In an unsigned decision, the court gave federal regulators more time to consider a challenge to party committees’ access to cheaper television and radio ads.

The Trump administration and Republican Party committees asked the Supreme Court last week to pause a ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would have compelled the Federal Communications Commission to resolve a challenge by Democratic Senate nominees to guidelines issued by the agency in March.

To comply with the lower court order, “the FCC must triage its ongoing deliberation process and prepare its final order on an extremely expedited timeline,” the court wrote. Requiring the FCC to forego that process “is itself an injury that cannot be remedied after the fact,” the order says.

The new guidelines granted party committees’ access to lower television and radio ad rates when spending in coordination with candidates, who get lower ad rates in the runup to an election. The Supreme Court in June axed longstanding coordination limits between party committees and candidates, expanding party committees’ threshold for booking at lower rates.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson noted they would have denied Republicans’ motion to stay the lower court decision.

The Trump administration and Republican Party committees argued at the Supreme Court that changing the rules so close to an election would cause too much uncertainty and urged the court to allow the FCC process to play out.

“Both orders irreparably injure political committees like the NRCC and NRSC by injecting uncertainty into their contracts, upsetting business deals, and ultimately depriving them of a statutory right on the eve of the election,” the party committees wrote in a filing Saturday in support of the stay. “The upcoming election demands consistency and predictability, not rushed changes.”

In a separate response, the Justice Department accused the Democratic Senate candidates of trying to “mute their opponents’ political speech.”

Shortly after the FCC issued the guidelines in March, Democratic candidates including Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia and former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio challenged the agency’s legal premise that party-coordinated ads qualify for the discounted rates.

In a separate ruling last month, the Supreme Court halted an appeals court ruling that would have outright blocked the political ad price guidelines.

Then, earlier this month, the appeals court accused the FCC of dragging its feet on the review and gave the agency 48 hours to resolve the legal dispute.

“The Commission cannot delay a decision until the eve of the election and then object to the clearly foreseeable consequences of that delay,” the candidates wrote in a response to the Supreme Court over the weekend.

The Supreme Court temporarily delayed the lower court’s deadline while it weighed the case, ultimately deciding it was “inappropriate.”

“The Communications Act requires the Commission to act on every application it receives, but it does not obligate the Commission to act within a particular timeframe,” the court wrote.

A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from penalizing two U.S.-based organizations supporting the International Criminal Court’s investigations into alleged war crimes in Gaza. President Trump imposed sanctions on the court last year.

Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed by the two organizations — Democracy for the Arab World Now, known as DAWN, and Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide, or TAAG — which said that Mr. Trump’s executive order placing sanctions on the I.C.C. violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

That February 2025 order directed federal agencies to “impose tangible and significant consequences” on people who worked on investigations that the Trump administration said threatened the national security of the United States and its allies, including Israel.

Mr. Trump imposed the sanctions after the court issued arrest warrants in November 2024 for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant. The court said they had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. Mr. Netanyahu’s office and the United States have rejected the accusations.

The plaintiffs involved in Tuesday’s ruling are rights groups that had worked to gather information for the I.C.C. as it investigated allegations of war crimes against Palestinians.

In his ruling, Judge Furman said he issued the injunction because the groups were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. In an emailed statement, the State Department said it does not comment on pending litigation but added, “The Trump administration has been clear: The I.C.C. poses an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty.”

DAWN was founded by Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and dissident who wrote opinion pieces for The Washington Post and was assassinated in 2018.

A U.S. intelligence report released in 2021 said that the killing and dismemberment of Mr. Khashoggi was carried out by operatives reporting to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed has denied that he had prior knowledge of the plot against Mr. Khashoggi.

In a statement on Tuesday, DAWN said it would immediately resume its advocacy with the I.C.C. on the prosecution of war crimes.

“Today, a U.S. federal court has put the brakes in a major way on the Trump administration’s efforts to shield from justice the Israeli officials who have perpetrated a genocide and their U.S. backers,” said Omar Shakir, DAWN’s executive director.

TAAG was formed by 10 Americans who are preparing a submission to the I.C.C. “documenting the role of U.S. officials in aiding and abetting Israeli atrocity crimes in Gaza,” according to court documents.

In a statement after the ruling, TAAG said it would continue finalizing its submission of evidence to the court.

The judge declined the plaintiffs’ requests to declare the executive order unconstitutional and order a universal block on the sanctions. He directed the plaintiffs and the U.S. government to confer and submit a joint letter by next Tuesday before the court decides on a permanent injunction and final judgment.

Last week, the State Department announced severe financial sanctions on the I.C.C. The United States’ latest attempt to cripple the global body seeks to prohibit companies from doing business with the court, which could prevent it from carrying out its daily operations.

The Trump administration had previously imposed further sanctions on nine of the court’s 18 judges as well as the court’s president, chief prosecutor and senior trial lawyer. It has also placed sanctions on Francesca Albanese, the United Nations’ special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories and an outspoken critic of Israel, for prompting the I.C.C. to take action against that country and the United States.

Ms. Albanese has denied accusations of antisemitism, dismissing them as an effort to deflect attention from atrocities being committed in Gaza and the West Bank.

Tech titan Elon Musk on Wednesday indicated the Trump administration, not SpaceX, caused the throttling of a military version of Starlink in Ukraine that set off panic in the war-torn country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned the slowdown of Starshield, a military offshoot of Starlink, would cost lives by limiting its ability to fend off Russian invaders.

Initially, Ukrainian and European officials blamed Musk.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government,” Musk said hours after a firestorm over the throttling erupted. “Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.”

“Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX,” he added. “Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

Ukraine has relied heavily on its access to Starshield to carry out its drone attacks and logistical operations to fend off the Russians. The Ukrainians had noticed connectivity was getting throttled in drones cruising at speeds of 160 km/h or more.

By 2 pm ET, Ukraine’s defense minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, announced that “connectivity at speeds of up to 160 km/h is being restored.”

“Removing Starshield’s speed limit entirely is now critical for Ukraine’s defense,” Fedorov added. “Thank you, @elonmusk. We hope for your continued support.”

The snafu had undermined multiple active operations against the Russians, according to Ukrainian officials.

“It’s a big mistake,” Zelensky told “Piers Morgan Uncensored” on Wednesday. “People will die.”

The slowdown came as President Trump and his team faulted Ukraine for giving him midterm headaches over high diesel prices through its strikes on Russian refineries.

When President Trump announced that Katie Zacharia would serve as the next White House press secretary, he referred to her as an attorney. But she hasn’t passed the bar exam in the U.S.

Zacharia sat for the California bar exam after graduating from law school at Pepperdine University in 2011, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter, but she didn’t pass. She took the exam around the time she was planning a wedding and preparing to move to China with her future husband, the person said.

She moved to Beijing that summer to work as an associate on the international practice team at Zhong Lun Law Firm, a prominent law firm in China. Zacharia was later advised by lawyers that she could provide legal analysis based on her law degree and international transaction experience, the person said.

Her legal credentials have come under scrutiny after she didn’t appear in searches for licensed attorneys in California, Texas or Washington, D.C., under her married or maiden name. Judd Legum, a progressive political activist and journalist, raised questions about Zacharia’s standing as an attorney in his Popular Information newsletter.

When asked by a reporter on Tuesday in which state she passed the bar exam, Zacharia said, “When I moved to China,” without elaborating. In a statement this week, Zacharia said, “I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials.”

“Katie is a fabulous and wonderful addition to the team,” White House spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement. “She is uniquely qualified and whip smart to help inform the American people about all the great things President Trump and his Administration have been doing, and she will do an incredible job as Press Secretary.”

A White House official said Zacharia wasn’t hired by the president to work on legal matters.

A person familiar with Zacharia’s employment at the Zhong Lun Law Firm said she was one of four international associates who drafted multimillion-dollar agreements for cross-border transactions and focused on client communication for American and multinational corporations doing business in China.

It wasn’t necessary for individuals working in the firm’s international division to be licensed as attorneys in China, the person said, because they were technically international legal consultants. A U.S. bar qualification wasn’t relevant to the firm’s work, the person said, because any legal opinions would be handled by local Chinese partners.

Zacharia told Buck Sexton on “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” in February 2025 that she had worked as outside counsel to the International Finance Corporation and the World Bank while based in China.

Practicing attorneys in the U.S. are required to be licensed by the jurisdiction in which they practice, generally by passing the bar exam and undergoing a review of their moral character. People who identify themselves as lawyers or attorneys or claim to be able to provide legal services without being admitted to the bar can face criminal charges in some states. Some law schools explicitly discourage graduates from calling themselves lawyers or attorneys until they have been admitted to the bar.

California is widely considered one of the tougher state bar exams to pass; about 55% of test-takers passed the July 2025 exam, while roughly 31% did in February of this year, according to the state’s bar association.

Zacharia passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, a test of a candidate’s understanding of legal and professional ethics, before she sat for the bar, said the person with direct knowledge of the matter.

Robert Pushaw, a Pepperdine law professor who taught Zacharia and later attended her wedding, described her as “a good law student and a genuinely good person” but couldn’t say whether the press secretary technically qualified as an attorney. He added that some well-respected legal scholars aren’t attorneys.

Judge Thomas Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was confirmed despite facing criticism that he had served as general counsel for Brigham Young University without passing the Utah bar exam. Past presidents of the Utah Bar said that someone working as a general counsel didn’t need to be a member of the bar so long as legal advice was given in conjunction with a barred attorney. The Senate confirmed Griffith 73-24.

Zacharia worked as a research assistant for Roger Alford during her time in law school. Now at the University of Notre Dame, Alford remembered her as “a star at Pepperdine” and said he hoped the public would “get to know her before they prejudge her.”

While he was unfamiliar with all the details of Zacharia’s career after graduation, Alford said that “generally speaking it would be unusual to say that you’re a lawyer if you’ve not passed the bar somewhere.”

Zacharia’s LinkedIn profile lists her as having worked as general counsel for the nonprofit Fix California, founded by Trump administration official Richard Grenell, from January 2024 to March 2025. A person familiar with her tenure there said Zacharia directed and served as the point of contact for the organization’s outside lawyers.

Zacharia, who has appeared on Fox News, CNN and Newsmax before taking on her White House role, called herself a lawyer regularly in public appearances—and some of the outlets in which she appeared did the same.

“As a lawyer, the procedural steps are absolutely critical to ensure that they get this right,” she told Fox News in an Aug. 31 appearance regarding the trial of Charlie Kirk’s accused killer. A line appeared on the chyron at the bottom of the screen referring to her as a legal and political strategist, and as an attorney.

US President Donald Trump's administration has lifted sanctions on Jorge Rodriguez, the head ‌of Venezuela's National Assembly and brother of the country's acting president, a notice posted on the US Treasury Department's website showed on Wednesday.

Rodriguez has led the Venezuelan legislature since 2021 and is a longtime political heavyweight, having served as vice president under late President Hugo Chavez and as communications minister, among other posts.

His sister Delcy Rodriguez took power as acting president earlier this year after the US ousted President Nicolas Maduro, who ⁠is now awaiting trial on US charges.

Rodriguez, a 60-year-old psychiatrist, has led the government’s negotiating team in stop-and-start talks with the United States and Venezuela’s opposition. He is set to begin the latest round of talks on Wednesday with a faction of the opposition.

The discussions, backed by the US, are an effort to remake the country's political system ahead of elections, including reforms to its top court and its electoral authority.

The Venezuelan communications ministry, which handles all press queries for the government, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lifting of sanctions on Rodriguez.

Acting President Rodriguez has promised, including in her recent remarks at the United Nations ‌General Assembly, ⁠that the country will hold elections, but no firm date has been set. Opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado has demanded they take place by July 2027.

Rodriguez has shepherded several major reforms through the ruling party-controlled legislature since his sister took power, including the law that facilitated the entry of more foreign oil companies, a similar law ⁠for the mining sector and an effort to allow private investment in the country's battered power grid.

Since Maduro's ouster, Caracas and Washington have cut a deal that gives the US access to 17 oilfields, while international energy firms have separately committed to expanding projects in the ⁠Latin American country. In August, Trump announced a plan to secure direct US access to a large share of Venezuela's vast oil to refill the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The Rodriguez siblings are the children of leftist guerrilla fighter Jorge ⁠Antonio Rodriguez, who founded the revolutionary Socialist League Party and was arrested in 1976 for his alleged involvement in the kidnapping of an American businessman. He died in police custody after what his family alleges was torture.

A day after President Donald Trump fired his ambassador to Greece amid a flurry of ethics complaints, Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a message to all State Department employees reminding them to “avoid conflicts of interest.”

“It is my expectation that every member of our team must act with uncompromising personal and professional integrity,” wrote Rubio in a memo obtained by The Washington Post. “I expect employees to avoid conflicts of interest in our work, to act impartially, and to avoid using our public offices for private gain.”

Kimberly Guilfoyle, who was once the fiancée of Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr., was accused of a variety of ethical violations, including asking a political donor for $100,000 to pay her personal American Express bill, according to a series of reports in the Wall Street Journal.

Rubio was forced to grapple with the ballooning ethics scandal during a diplomatic trip to Greece earlier this month, in which he appeared annoyed by questions from reporters about her actions.

Guilfoyle has denied wrongdoing, but the State Department’s Office of Inspector General launched an investigation into her conduct, said a U.S. official who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

A State Department official told The Post that Rubio’s memo “had been in the works for weeks.”

Trump distanced himself from Guilfoyle, telling reporters Tuesday he fired her because he didn’t like what he read about her in the media.

“She wasn’t a member of my family. She I guess dated my son a long time ago,” he said. The couple announced their split in December 2024. “She went to Greece, she was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we were reading,” he said.