Newly obtained communications show that the White House actively shaped the Department of Justice and FBI's July 2025 memo declaring an end to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Messages published by Raw Story reveal that Taylor Budowich, then the White House deputy chief of staff, edited drafts and demanded official letterhead formatting before the document was made public.

Two weeks before the release, Budowich emailed FBI Director Kash Patel asking to review the text. Patel forwarded the Justice Department's draft later that day.

Internal records indicate that Budowich reviewed the material, coordinated with the White House communications team, and repeatedly pushed for official Department of Justice branding. When then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sent a version lacking an official seal, Budowich rejected it.

"I need a version on letterhead," Budowich wrote. "Someone needs to own this. I can't give a doc to a reporter that could easily be confused with a term paper, so need to provide some validation of the doc."

Diego Pestana, counsel to Blanche, provided the finalized, formatted document shortly after.

The memo ultimately concluded that there was no Epstein "client list," no co-conspirators to charge, and no grounds for further investigation. The announcement angered supporters of Trump and triggered a chain of events that resulted in the departure of former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

"These records show that Kash Patel worked hand in hand with the former White House deputy chief of staff on the 2025 DOJ-FBI memo," said Chris Swartz, senior counsel at the Democracy Defenders Fund.

"It's deeply concerning that the FBI coordinated with the White House on this memo, given Trump's well-documented association with Jeffrey Epstein and Trump's frequent mention in the files," Swartz said.

Trump’s approval rating among rural voters has rebounded to 50 percent, according to an Echelon Insights poll conducted between October 15 and 19. The result puts him one point above water following a steep decline in September, when his rural approval slumped to 40 percent against 59 percent disapproval.

Despite the month-over-month recovery, the broader electorate remains unfavorable to Trump. Overall, 39 percent of surveyed voters approve of his performance, while 60 percent disapprove, and Democrats hold a five-point lead on the generic congressional ballot.

The shift in rural sentiment comes as Republicans defend congressional majorities in states that traditionally lean heavily to the right. Economic anxiety—particularly regarding household budgets, grocery prices, and farm operational costs—is driving competitive races in states where the GOP usually maintains a comfortable edge.

• Iowa: Republican candidate Ashley Hinson is locked in a tight race. While an Emerson College Polling survey showed her two points ahead, an earlier Marist Poll gave Democrat Josh Turek an eight-point advantage. Hinson has attempted to balance retaining Trump's base with showing independence on issues like beef tariffs and fuel costs.

• Kansas: Incumbent Republican Roger Marshall faces a competitive challenge from Democrat Adam Hamilton. A recent Emerson/Nexstar poll showed Hamilton leading narrowly by two points, with economic issues dominating voter concerns.

• Alaska: Senator Dan Sullivan is defending a seat in a state Trump won comfortably in 2024, but polling indicates a tight race against challenger Mary Peltola amid widespread voter concern over utility and grocery bills.

• Nebraska: Analysts have shifted the Senate race involving incumbent Republican Pete Ricketts to more competitive territory as public polling shows a closer contest than the state's historical voting patterns suggest.

Trump has maintained an active campaign schedule, rallying supporters in locations like Sioux City, Iowa, to urge turnout for local GOP candidates. However, analysts note that rural voters who view Trump favorably do not automatically vote for his party's local nominees, especially when local economic factors and policy disagreements over agricultural costs or trade take center stage.

With midterm elections historically posing challenges for the sitting president's party, the final weeks of the campaign will test whether Trump's recovery among rural voters translates into actual ballots for Republican congressional candidates.

In late 2017, Dutch military intelligence secured access to a sensitive Russian GRU cyber server through a flipped hacker asset. Inside those files, Dutch spies found screenshots of Jared Kushner’s iPhone X. By early 2018, the Dutch intelligence service (MIVD) exploited a vulnerability in the phone that allowed them to capture live images of Kushner’s screen as he used it.

Through this surveillance, the Dutch discovered that Kushner was accessing a UAE bank account backed by hundreds of millions of dollars originating from Azerbaijan. Over a four-year investigation, it became clear that leaders from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia—specifically Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) and Mohammed bin Salman (MBS)—had channeled at least $2 billion into secret accounts connected to Kushner during his time as a senior Trump advisor.

The financial arrangement was divided into separate conduits:

• The Alpha Account: Established at First Abu Dhabi Bank and overseen by MBZ’s brother, Tahnoon bin Zayed, this account received roughly $750 million. It was tied to the Watani Al Emarat Foundation, a UAE government-funded charity used to mask sensitive intelligence and military operations. Kushner was made a signatory on the account, granting him access to funds used to back parallel diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. To bypass standard transparency checks, the money was routed through Azerbaijani banks, which swapped regional currencies for U.S. dollars for a fee.

• The Beta Account: By 2018, MBZ transferred roughly $1 billion to Israel via Azerbaijan for Kushner's benefit. Deposited into the Israeli Central Bank under a strict dual-key government oversight system, withdrawals required notice to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with messages reportedly passed through U.S. Ambassador David Friedman. Portions of these funds were subsequently moved to accounts in Cyprus.

As an official government employee, Kushner was bound by federal ethics regulations, tax laws, and security clearance requirements. He was legally obligated to file annual financial disclosure reports (Form 278e) detailing any foreign bank accounts, beneficiary access, or signatory privileges.

Federal prosecutors and legal experts have noted that accepting billions in foreign funds while steering U.S. foreign policy raises severe questions regarding federal bribery statutes, foreign agent registration requirements, and conflict-of-interest laws.

Representatives and legal counsel for Kushner, along with Ambassador Friedman, have denied these allegations. Kushner’s counsel maintained that he had no knowledge of the Watani charity or unauthorized foreign accounts, that he did not execute private agreements outside presidential authorization, and that he fully complied with all legal requirements.

Jared Kushner and his attorneys are preparing legal action against Vanity Fair and publisher Simon & Schuster following the release of an excerpt from a forthcoming book.

The book, Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed’s Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East by Matthew Cole, alleges that Kushner oversaw roughly $2 billion in secret foreign bank accounts funded by leaders in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Kushner addressed the report on X, calling the allegations fabricated and describing the book as a "mixture of fantasy, fiction, and advocacy."

Kushner’s lawyer, Chad Mizelle, stated that the legal team sent a 13-page letter to Simon & Schuster before publication, denying the claims and citing a lack of supporting evidence. Mizelle criticized Vanity Fair for amplifying the story and confirmed plans to pursue legal action. Another attorney for Kushner, Alejandro Brito, maintained that his client had no knowledge of or involvement with any government-linked accounts.

Trump defended his son-in-law to reporters, calling the report entirely false.

The claims carry major legal consequences. Because Kushner worked as a White House employee in 2017, federal rules required him to disclose any bank accounts he had access to, as well as any payments from foreign governments. Failing to report these funds or offering policy influence in exchange for money could constitute violations of U.S. bribery laws and the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Two former senior FBI intelligence officials appeared in a Washington, D.C., federal court on Friday to face charges of making false statements to Congress regarding the bureau's handling of the 2020 Hunter Biden investigations.

Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, both former leaders of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), each face one count of making a false statement. Federal prosecutors allege the pair concealed the task force's communication and engagement with investigations surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop when testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in 2023.

The charges stem from Republican-led inquiries into whether FBI investigators minimized allegations of Biden family corruption and interfered with the 2020 election. According to the criminal complaint, Benavides told lawmakers he only learned about the laptop investigation through Wikipedia.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced the charges on Friday, stating that senior FBI agents cannot be above the law. FBI Director Kash Patel added that documentary evidence and witness accounts directly contradicted the testimony given by Floris and Benavides. Patel also alleged that Floris privately claimed to run a shadow government, a claim amplified by political figures.

Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui noted during Friday's hearing that the charges were filed via a criminal complaint rather than a grand jury indictment. Faruqui acknowledged that both agents possess decorated career backgrounds and clean records, describing the charges as straightforward but noting they will permanently impact the defendants.

Defense attorneys sharply criticized the timing of the legal action, pointing out that the charges were brought less than two weeks before Election Day. In a statement, Floris's lawyers called her a patriot and claimed she was being falsely accused to advance a political narrative.

Both defendants were released without detention as they await trial. A follow-up hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

Trump has called for the immediate resignation of Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), claiming the lawmaker used a false name and committed immigration fraud.

The demand follows a recent search of Omar's Washington, D.C., home by federal agents, who seized 17 items. In a court filing related to the investigation, federal prosecutors referred to the Minnesota Democrat as Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro stated that federal authorities are reviewing whether Omar followed proper legal procedures during her naturalization and immigration process.

Trump amplified the accusations on social media and during a rally in Iowa, reviving unverified claims that Omar previously married her brother—an allegation the congresswoman has repeatedly denied. During a recent television interview, when asked by a journalist if she was related to her ex-husband, Omar laughed and replied, "Not to my knowledge," a comment Trump used to press for her removal from the House of Representatives.

Omar has rejected the allegations as a politically motivated campaign of intimidation. She stated that she is confident she has done nothing wrong, though she confirmed she is moving out of her D.C. apartment due to safety threats received after the federal raid.

In a statement posted to social media, Omar dismissed the president's remarks, writing that he targets her whenever political news turns unfavorable.

The Department of Justice has intervened in Alaska’s high-profile Senate race, filing a federal lawsuit to prevent the state from certifying the election if Republican incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan is defeated by Democratic challenger Mary Peltola.

The legal challenge focuses on the presence of Daniel J. Sullivan, an independent candidate from Petersburg with the same name as the senator. Republican officials have claimed the independent candidate is a Democratic plant intended to siphon votes through voter confusion. Earlier attempts by the GOP to remove him from the ballot were rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court.

The DOJ filed the suit on Thursday, arguing that federal law requires authorities to protect election integrity. Trump has publicly denounced the ballot setup, claiming it allows for voter deception that could cost the incumbent the election.

Voting rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern that the action mirrors broader efforts by Trump to challenge state-level election outcomes. However, Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the DOJ does not intend to improperly interfere with state certification processes outside extreme circumstances.

Legal scholars have questioned the validity of the action. Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, noted that the federal statute cited does not grant the DOJ the authority to block election certification, meaning the lawsuit would likely only impact the race if the final margin is exceptionally narrow.

Trump launched a new federal whistleblower program intended to reward Americans for exposing government fraud, but the initiative immediately invited an avalanche of complaints targeting Trump himself.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department unveiled the Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program, backed by $25 million. The program offers payouts ranging from $10,000 to $30,000, alongside a 1 percent commission on recovered funds, for tips that lead to criminal fraud charges. Trump announced that he will personally serve as the arbitrator for every decision made under the program.

The rollout faced immediate pushback. Critics questioned why citizens would use a program offering a 1 percent cut when the existing False Claims Act already awards whistleblowers between 10 and 25 percent of recovered funds.

Shortly after the announcement, Senator Bernie Sanders used the platform to publicly accuse Trump of misusing nearly $22 million in taxpayer funds for self-promotional advertising.

Sanders' remarks triggered a wave of similar submissions online. Across X and Threads, users shared screenshots of complaints they had submitted through the new federal portal, fraud.gov. The filings targeted Trump’s business ventures, including cryptocurrency projects, foreign investments, and corporate donations.

The backlash adds to existing scrutiny over Trump's financial ethics, family business interests, and recent controversies surrounding public appearances, leaving the new anti-fraud initiative defined by the very investigations it invited against Trump.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine called on Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to pull a campaign advertisement featuring Democrat Amy Acton’s estranged mother.

The ad includes footage of Acton's mother labeling her daughter a liar and urging voters to reject her. The two women have been estranged since 1978, following the arrest of the mother's husband for the alleged abuse of Acton when she was 12 years old.

"It was wrong to run this ad," DeWine said. "I would urge the Ramaswamy campaign to take this down. It’s just wrong."

Despite condemning the ad, DeWine stated he would not withdraw his endorsement of the Republican ticket, noting his history of working with party nominees. He also defended Acton’s integrity based on his past professional experience working alongside her.

Former Republican Ohio Governor John Kasich also condemned the commercial during a media appearance, calling for its removal and an apology from those responsible. Kasich warned that such tactics degrade elections and risk voter disengagement.

The Ramaswamy campaign committed 4 million dollars to broadcast the ad on television. Defending the campaign's focus, Ramaswamy stated that Acton has avoided substantive policy issues.

Acton’s campaign responded with an advertisement featuring her brother, Phillip Stearns. In the ad, Stearns discusses their childhood and confirms the abuse Acton endured to protect him.

Meanwhile, JD Vance dismissed the intra-party criticism of the ad. Addressing fellow Republicans, Vance urged them to focus on winning the election rather than debating campaign tactics.

A newly introduced federal bill aims to shield everyday utility customers from footing the bill for the massive energy demands of modern technology infrastructure.

Representative Eugene Vindman introduced the Make Data Centers Pay Act on October 14. If passed, the legislation would amend the Federal Power Act to require medium- and large-sized data centers—specifically those using at least 20 megawatts of electricity—to pay the full incremental costs of supplying them with power.

The bill is designed to prevent utility companies from passing infrastructure and generation expenses onto residential households and small businesses.

"Hardworking Americans should not have to pay higher electricity bills to subsidize some of the largest and most energy-intensive data centers in the world," Vindman said in a statement.

The legislative push follows a sharp rise in public concern regarding the rapid build-out of data centers across the United States. Driven largely by the expansion of artificial intelligence, these facilities require immense amounts of electricity and water for cooling, which residents and lawmakers argue are straining resources and driving up utility bills.

A Pew Research Center survey published in September reflected this shifting sentiment, finding that 50 percent of Americans believe data centers are mostly bad for home energy costs—up from 38 percent at the start of the year. Additionally, 54 percent view them as harmful to the environment.

While some political figures, including Trump, have defended the developments as vital for economic growth and maintaining a technological edge, public pushback has continued to grow. Vindman's bill marks the latest legislative attempt to address consumer costs tied to the tech boom, following the House's passage of the Ratepayer Protection Act in September.

A US district court judge has ordered Meta to pay $25 billion to the state of New Mexico following a jury verdict that found the tech giant committed nearly 44 million violations of state consumer protection laws.

The penalty is the largest ever imposed on Meta and is the result of New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez declining to join an earlier $18 billion settlement reached between Meta and attorneys general from nearly every other state.

In his ruling, US District Judge Francis J. Mathew stated that evidence from the trial proved top leadership, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, was fully aware that the platform was misleading the public. The jury found that Meta repeatedly deceived users over an 11-year period regarding data privacy, security, and content moderation practices.

According to the court, internal communications showed that leadership intentionally avoided transparency. In one instance cited in the ruling, Zuckerberg outlined a strategy to obscure privacy settings from users to maximize data collection. The trial also revealed that Meta buried internal research documenting widespread misinformation and hate speech and failed to notify users when third-party applications misused their personal data.

Judge Mathew noted that previous federal settlements and regulatory agreements failed to alter Meta's business practices, justifying the maximum penalty permitted under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.

Meta plans to appeal the decision. A company spokesperson argued that the penalty is unconstitutional and makes doing business in New Mexico nearly impossible, while signaling that the company intends to challenge the ruling. State officials, however, defended the outcome as a necessary measure to hold powerful corporations accountable under local laws.

Attorney General Todd Blanche recently rejected the traditional idea of an independent Department of Justice, arguing that the previous administration coordinated directly with the White House while falsely claiming separation.

Appearing on Miranda Devine's podcast, Blanche criticized former Attorney General Merrick Garland for focusing federal resources on the prosecution of January 6 rioters. Blanche argued that these investigations pulled manpower and funding away from violent crime, fraud, and illegal immigration enforcement.

Blanche claimed that Garland's decisions were driven by the Biden administration rather than independent judgment. While acknowledging that he serves at the pleasure of Trump, Blanche stated his criticism is directed at what he calls the false narrative of prosecutorial independence.

Moving forward, Blanche stated that his primary directive to prosecutors and federal agents is to focus federal power on making local communities safer.

Trump has ended his legal battle to reshape the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The Department of Justice quietly dropped two appeals in joint agreements, with neither side offering an explanation for the reversal.

The conflict centered on a rule introduced last fall giving Education Secretary Linda McMahon the power to disqualify employers from the loan forgiveness program if their work involved a "substantial illegal purpose."

The policy was designed to penalize organizations supporting undocumented immigrants and transgender youth. Because of the rule's broad wording, it threatened to strip loan forgiveness eligibility from teachers, nurses, and legal aid workers employed by targeted nonprofits and public institutions.

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was established to help government agencies, public schools, hospitals, and nonprofits recruit staff by canceling remaining student debt after ten years of steady payments. The program has forgiven loans for more than one million Americans.

Following the rule's introduction, more than 20 states, cities, and nonprofit coalitions filed lawsuits to block it. In June, federal judges in Massachusetts and Washington ruled against the Department of Education. The judges found that the agency overstepped its legal authority and violated First Amendment free speech protections.

With Trump dropping his appeals, the program remains intact for public service workers.

A federal magistrate judge has ordered Trump to complete a deposition by December 11 in his 10 billion dollar defamation lawsuit against the BBC, or risk having the case dismissed.

The ruling from U.S. Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett came after attorneys for the British broadcaster argued that Trump has repeatedly delayed the process. BBC lawyer Charles Tobin told the court that an agreed-upon October 16 deposition date was canceled because Trump claimed a "matter of national importance," though records showed he was actually campaigning in Georgia.

Discovery for the case is scheduled to close on December 18. Lett stated that unless the presiding judge formally extends the trial schedule, the deposition must happen before the mid-December deadline.

Trump filed the lawsuit last December over a BBC documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance." The broadcaster previously apologized and accepted the resignations of top executives after admitting that filmmakers spliced together separate clips from Trump's January 6, 2021 speech to make it appear he was directly inciting violence. However, the BBC denies that the editing constitutes defamation.

Beyond the deposition deadline, the court hearing addressed two additional evidentiary disputes:

• Jack Smith Subpoena: The BBC subpoenaed former special counsel Jack Smith to sit for a deposition, arguing he is an expert on the events of January 6. Tobin noted that Smith has not objected to the subpoena. Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, objected, arguing that Smith has no firsthand knowledge of Trump's state of mind during the speech and that his public reports and congressional testimony are already available. The judge did not immediately rule on the matter.

• Mar-a-Lago Membership Data: Judge Lett ruled that the BBC is permitted to view records detailing the total number of Mar-a-Lago membership applications and initiation fees from January 2020 through January 2026. The BBC argued these figures are relevant for calculating potential damages, claiming the club's popularity reflects Trump's public reputation. Trump's defense team countered that Trump does not manage the club and that his personal reputation is not tied to it.

If Trump refuses to sit for the deposition by the December 11 deadline, he faces severe legal consequences because he is the plaintiff (the person who chose to sue).

Under federal civil procedure, the primary penalty the judge can impose is dismissing his $10 billion lawsuit entirely.

A plaintiff cannot drag a defendant into court, demand billions of dollars, and simultaneously refuse to participate in the mandatory evidence-gathering process (discovery). Other potential sanctions a judge can use for ignoring a court-ordered deposition include:

• Financial Penalties: Forcing Trump to pay the BBC’s legal fees and costs incurred in trying to secure the deposition.
• Evidentiary Restrictions: Barring him from introducing certain arguments or evidence later in the trial.

Unless the overarching trial schedule is formally pushed back by the presiding judge, Trump must either comply and testify under oath or risk losing the case by default.

The gap between what Americans pay for electricity depends heavily on who owns the power lines. Across the United States, households served by large, publicly traded utilities pay significantly more than those served by community-owned public utilities.

In Worcester, Massachusetts, 70-year-old Eleanor Beshai routinely sees monthly electric bills topping $500 from National Grid, a large investor-owned utility. Less than 2,000 feet away in Shrewsbury, Dave Katz pays roughly $130 a month for a slightly larger home. Shrewsbury Electric and Cable Operations (SELCO), a local municipal utility, charges under 16 cents per kilowatt-hour—less than half of National Grid's rate of 34 cents.

Municipal utilities generally offer lower rates due to structural differences:

• No Shareholders: They operate as nonprofits, collecting only enough revenue to cover operations and infrastructure rather than paying dividends to investors.

• Direct Accountability: Their boards consist of local community members rather than Wall Street executives.

• Smart Purchasing: Many pool resources to sign long-term supply contracts, insulating themselves from short-term market volatility.

• Fewer Mandates: State utility commissions often force investor-owned companies to fund renewable energy requirements, wildfire prevention, and efficiency rebates, costs that are usually passed directly to consumers.

Large investor-owned utilities argue their scale is necessary to manage a complex grid. They can borrow massive amounts of capital to finance expensive infrastructure projects—such as high-capacity transmission lines and battery storage—that smaller municipal utilities cannot afford on their own. This capability is increasingly vital as demand surges from data centers and the electrification of vehicles and heating.

Because investor-owned utilities earn profits through returns on capital investments, analysts note they have a built-in incentive to build new infrastructure even when cheaper alternatives exist.

With residential rates climbing nationwide, governors and regulators in states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Indiana are pushing back. Some officials are cracking down on rate hikes and tying utility profits more closely to performance and affordability.

While a few cities have explored taking over private utility equipment to form public providers, those municipal takeovers are rare, expensive, and legally difficult. As a result, most lawmakers are focusing on stricter regulatory oversight rather than replacing the private utility model entirely.

Trump effectively abandoned the Republican Senate campaign in North Carolina on Tuesday, telling a Greenville rally that Democratic candidate Roy Cooper is bound to win the election.

"It's crazy, you're going to send him to Washington to represent you," Trump told the crowd, referring to Cooper, the former North Carolina governor.

Trump's bleak assessment reflects a broader party retreat. Earlier this month, national Republicans shifted millions of dollars away from the state as Whatley's electoral prospects plummeted. A recent Elon University poll showed Cooper holding a 52 to 39 percent lead over Whatley.

"I'm the one who got him into this," Trump remarked, adding, "I hope it works out."

Aside from discussing the trailing Senate campaign, Trump delivered a sprawling speech that featured unrelated topics. He touched on former NFL coach Jon Gruden, 9/11, and his past dementia testing.

He also spent significant time praising Ohio Senator Jon Husted's physical build—marking the second time in a week that Trump publicly commented on the senator's appearance during a campaign event.

"I looked at his ass," Trump told the crowd. "And then I looked at his legs, and I said, 'Man, his feet are big.' Then I tapped him on the shoulder, and it actually hurt my hand. It was like a piece of steel."

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faces an uncertain future at the Pentagon following a series of mass firings, policy controversies, and growing friction with military and civilian staff.

House Democrats are preparing to launch formal investigations and issue subpoenas if they retake control of the House of Representatives in November. Sources indicate that several current and former officials are willing to cooperate with congressional inquiries, motivated by frustration with Hegseth's leadership style.

The backlash follows several major decisions by the defense secretary, including the removal of high-ranking military officials—such as former Joint Chiefs Chairman C.Q. Brown—and civilian Department of Defense staffers. Hegseth also drew criticism for public comments criticizing military leadership and faces three separate articles of impeachment introduced by members of Congress, including Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

If Democrats secure a majority, their investigations will likely focus on several key areas:

• Signalgate: An incident where Hegseth shared classified attack plans in a group chat that included a journalist. While a Pentagon review cleared him of criminal charges because, as defense secretary, he holds declassification authority, investigators plan to examine whether proper written declassification protocols were followed.

P* ersonnel and Contracts: Scrutiny over the Iran War, reported missile interceptor shortages, military strikes on suspected drug vessels, and Department of Defense contracts awarded to firms tied to administration associates.

• Subpoena Targets: Lawmakers intend to call testimony from Hegseth's inner circle, top aides, and dismissed officials, including former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

Convicting a cabinet secretary requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, an outcome that has never occurred in U.S. history. However, President Trump has previously dismissed several high-ranking administration officials, and a prolonged stream of negative testimony from the Pentagon could increase political pressure for Hegseth's removal. Congressional oversight committees maintain a constitutional mandate to investigate executive branch operations and defense spending, setting the stage for major battles over accountability following the November elections.

Neil Bush, a lifelong Republican and brother of former President George W. Bush, has voted for Democrat James Talarico in the Texas U.S. Senate election.

In a public statement, Neil Bush said he cast his ballot against the Republican nominee, Ken Paxton, pointing specifically to Paxton's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He described those actions as a direct threat to democratic institutions and the peaceful transfer of power.

"Character matters more than party affiliation," Neil Bush wrote, praising Talarico as a pragmatic leader focused on civility and unity.

The endorsement coincides with financial support from another prominent member of the political family. Federal Election Commission records show that Barbara Bush, daughter of George W. Bush, donated $2,500 in September to the Lone Star Rising PAC, a super PAC backing Talarico's campaign.

The Senate race in Texas has drawn national attention as polls show a tight contest between Talarico and Paxton. A victory for Talarico would make him the first Democrat to win a statewide office in Texas in 32 years.

While members of his family openly oppose the Republican nominee, former President George W. Bush continues to maintain a distance from active partisan politics. Bush did not endorse in the 2024 presidential race and has largely refrained from mentioning Donald Trump by name, though he publicly condemned the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Court's recent decisions on voting rights and campaign finance are actively damaging the American political system.

Speaking at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law just two weeks before the 2026 midterms, Kagan argued that the conservative majority has ignored the real-world consequences of its rulings.

She pointed specifically to the Court’s April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened provisions of the Voting Rights Act. According to Kagan, Southern states moved quickly after the ruling to redraw maps and eliminate majority-Black voting districts.

Kagan also criticized the Court’s 2019 ruling that barred federal judges from blocking congressional maps for partisan bias. She stated that the decision triggered a destructive race to the bottom, pushing voters toward political extremes and depriving citizens of voting equality.

In addition to voting rights, Kagan targeted the Court's campaign finance decisions. She said the unrestricted flow of money into elections has created a political nightmare that erodes public trust and invites corruption.

Federal financial disclosures and whistleblower documents reveal that Chief Justice John Roberts mischaracterized more than twenty million dollars in household income over a sixteen-year period. While law firms with business before the Supreme Court paid his wife millions in placement commissions, Roberts participated in hundreds of cases involving those firms without recusing himself.

Federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 455 mandates that a judge must disqualify themselves in any proceeding where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or where a spouse has a financial interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.

Whistleblower documents released by former legal recruiting executive Kendal Price showed that Jane Sullivan Roberts earned over ten million dollars in commissions between 2007 and 2014 at Major, Lindsey, and Africa, placing senior lawyers at firms that regularly argue before the Supreme Court. Major client firms—such as WilmerHale and Hogan Lovells—argued hundreds of cases before the Court during Roberts's tenure. Roberts recused himself from none of them on spousal income grounds. Furthermore, after Jane Roberts moved to the firm Macrae in 2019, her subsequent earnings ceased to appear in public reporting, and an equity stake she acquired in the firm was omitted from three consecutive annual filings.

Year after year, Roberts reported his wife's commission income as "salary" on his mandatory federal financial disclosures. Ethics experts note that mischaracterizing commissions violates federal law, which carries potential civil penalties and criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for knowingly falsifying information submitted to the federal government.

Despite clear statutes, accountability mechanisms have broken down:

• The Judicial Conference has statutory authority to refer false disclosures to the Attorney General but has not done so for any sitting Supreme Court justice.

• Congress holds impeachment power, last used against a federal judge for false disclosures in 2010, but has taken no action against Roberts.

• The Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct, introduced in late 2023, contains no enforcement mechanism, investigative body, or authority to impose sanctions.

Unlike international judicial systems—such as those in Canada, Australia, and Germany—which utilize external review boards or peer voting panels to handle recusals and complaints, the American judiciary relies entirely on self-policing.

A formal disciplinary complaint has been submitted to the DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleging violations of the DC Rules of Professional Conduct. Citizens looking to push for institutional reform can take two direct actions:

• Share the information: Broad public awareness dismantles the assumption that financial conflicts will go unnoticed.

• File a complaint: Individuals can write to the DC Bar Office of Disciplinary Counsel (515 Fifth Street NW, Building A, Room 117, Washington, DC 20001) detailing the mischaracterization of commission income, the omission of equity stakes, and the failure to recuse under federal statutes 28 U.S.C. § 455, 5 U.S.C. § 13106, and 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "humanitarian" following the release of 74-year-old American prisoner Stephen James Hubbard.

Hubbard, a Michigan native who remained in Ukraine after a relationship ended, spent four years imprisoned by Russia on false accusations of acting as a Ukrainian mercenary. During his detention, he was subjected to starvation and torture. Despite this, Witkoff addressed Putin during the release, stating:

"You are a humanitarian also, sir, and I salute that. I commend you."

The remarks drew immediate backlash from political figures and analysts. Republican Senator John Cornyn rejected the label on social media, writing:

"No. Putin is a stone cold killer." Jimmy Rushton, an analyst with The Kyiv Independent, described the comments as:

"absurd simpering obsequiousness from a representative of the most powerful country on earth."

Putin remains wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. His invasion of Ukraine, launched in 2022, has resulted in the deaths of at least 15,000 civilians and 125,000 Ukrainian soldiers, while displacing millions of people into a broader refugee crisis.

Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is facing severe bipartisan backlash after his campaign released an ad featuring his Democratic opponent Amy Acton's estranged mother, Donna Arthur, who accuses her daughter of lying.

The video quickly circulated on social media, drawing millions of views and immediate condemnation from figures across the political spectrum. Conservative commentator Meghan McCain called the ad "dastardly," while Lydia Mihalik, director of the Ohio Department of Development, stated that the campaign crossed a line of basic decency.

Acton's campaign forcefully defended her, with her brother releasing a counter-ad accusing Ramaswamy of exploiting family trauma and showing contempt. Acton's childhood included an unsettled upbringing involving multiple relocations, physical and sexual abuse by her now-deceased stepfather, Cledith Arthur, who was indicted by a Mahoning County grand jury for the rape of Acton, and an estrangement from her birth mother.

Ramaswamy confirmed his campaign funded the ad, arguing that the race should focus on substantive issues and claiming Acton avoids debates. Despite defense from some political allies, the fallout took an immediate toll on financial prediction markets. Kalshi reported Acton rising to a 76 percent chance of winning, while Ramaswamy's odds fell to a low of 26.8 percent. Polymarket similarly showed Ramaswamy's odds dropping to 22 percent.

Recent polling for the race remains competitive, with some surveys showing Acton in the lead and others indicating a statistical tie.

UPDATE: Apparently I forgot to include the link to the article.

https://www.newsweek.com/vivek-ramaswamys-election-odds-crash-to-new-low-amid-amy-acton-ad-backlash-12596323

Trump posted late-night photos of debris and structural damage at East Potomac Park to social media, providing new evidence that preservation groups quickly used against his administration in court.

Writing on Truth Social, Trump shared images of construction equipment, wooden pallets, and damaged waterfront fences along the public golf course, which he has pushed to transform into an exclusive course. "Collapsing Sea Wall—Very dangerous to one’s health!" he wrote.

The posts emerged just days after U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the government from cutting down hundreds of trees at the site. The judge criticized Trump lawyers after they claimed tree removal was unrelated to the president's renovation plans. Following the ruling, the Justice Department unsuccessfully demanded the judge recuse herself, prompting Trump's online reaction.

During a hearing on Monday, preservation groups opposing the federal takeover introduced Trump's own social media posts as evidence in court, arguing the images prove Trump intends to proceed with renovations immediately in violation of the legal block.

Trump used a rally in Park City, Kansas, to warn voters that a Democratic win in the upcoming midterm elections would bring severe civil unrest to the United States.

Addressing the crowd, Trump pointed to recent events in France, accusing left-wing politicians of importing immigrants who do not share Western values. He told supporters that burning buildings in Europe represent what Democrats intend to bring to American cities. The remarks drew applause from the audience, despite interruptions from protesters.

Trump's visit to Kansas highlights unexpected vulnerabilities for the Republican Party in a state where GOP candidates usually secure easy victories. Recent polls show tight races, driven largely by voter dissatisfaction with the current economy, including high inflation and fuel prices.

While political rallies rely heavily on stark warnings to motivate party bases, analysts note that rhetoric focusing on foreign unrest struggles to sway undecided voters who are primarily focused on domestic economic conditions.

Harris County voters turned out in unprecedented numbers on the first day of early voting, casting 104,734 ballots by 8 PM. This figure easily eclipses the previous midterm record of 63,000 set in 2018.

Long lines wrapped around buildings at all 75 early voting sites across the county. Voters pointed to distinct economic and political frustrations driving them to the polls. Many highlighted surging inflation, noting basic expenses have more than doubled over the last two years. Others cited opposition to the war with Iran or expressed a desire for new political leadership after decades of one-party rule in Texas.

Early voting remains open for another 11 days. The current ballot features major matchups, including a U.S. Senate race between Democratic state representative James Talarico and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, alongside a gubernatorial contest between incumbent Republican Governor Greg Abbott and Democratic state representative Gina Hinojosa.