#cnnpolitics — Public Fediverse posts

The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti

By Daniel Dale, Updated 47 min ago

Top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have responded to the killing of Alex Pretti by the Border Patrol in Minneapolis on Saturday with a torrent of claims that are either contradicted by video footage or unsupported by any evidence presented so far.

• Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Pretti “attacked” officers, an assertion echoed by FBI Director Kash Patel, but no footage available as of Sunday afternoon shows Pretti committing any attack.
• Noem claimed Pretti was “brandishing” a gun, but no available footage shows Pretti even holding a weapon in his hand at the scene; a concealed gun appeared to be taken from his waistband area by a federal agent moments before he was shot.
• White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller referred to Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents,” Vice President JD Vance reposted this claim, and Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino (and the Department of Homeland Security in a social media post) said it “looks like” Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” But nobody has shown any evidence that Pretti sought to kill anyone, let alone perpetrate a massacre.
• Patel suggested that Pretti broke the law by carrying a concealed gun at a protest, but the Minneapolis police chief said Pretti had a permit to carry the gun and was allowed to have it on him as he was protesting in a public place.

Pretti’s parents issued a statement on Saturday saying, “The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting.” And in television interviews on Sunday, the administration declined to repeat some of its most incendiary allegations from Saturday about Pretti, who was a registered nurse in an intensive care unit at a Veterans Affairs facility.

Here is a look at how the Trump team’s shifting rhetoric squares with what is known about Pretti and the circumstances around his death.

The administration claimed that Pretti ‘attacked’ officers. But videos don’t show Pretti committing any attack

Noem told reporters Saturday: “This individual impeded the law enforcement officers and attacked them,” repeating the phrase “attacked them” moments later for emphasis. When Patel was asked about the shooting in a Sunday interview on Fox News, he responded, “You do not get to attack law enforcement officials in this country without any repercussions.”

No video of the incident available as of Sunday afternoon showed Pretti attacking officers.

Various footage shows him directing traffic at the site of an immigration enforcement operation, yelling at a federal agent who was interacting with other bystanders to “not push them into the traffic,” holding up a cell phone appearing to record agents, and stepping in front of an agent to intervene as the agent shoved a woman to the ground; Pretti appeared to make momentary contact with the agent with his right arm and left hand.

The agent then sprayed him with a chemical irritant and dragged him to the ground; other officers joined in the confrontation as Pretti appeared to resist, and one agent appeared to strike him repeatedly as he was on the ground.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Bovino claimed Pretti “assaulted federal officers.” But when Bash pressed Bovino to explain what moment in the video showed Pretti committing such an assault, Bovino would not provide any specifics.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti | CNN Politics

The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti

By Daniel Dale, Updated 47 min ago

Top officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have responded to the killing of Alex Pretti by the Border Patrol in Minneapolis on Saturday with a torrent of claims that are either contradicted by video footage or unsupported by any evidence presented so far.

• Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed Pretti “attacked” officers, an assertion echoed by FBI Director Kash Patel, but no footage available as of Sunday afternoon shows Pretti committing any attack.
• Noem claimed Pretti was “brandishing” a gun, but no available footage shows Pretti even holding a weapon in his hand at the scene; a concealed gun appeared to be taken from his waistband area by a federal agent moments before he was shot.
• White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller referred to Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents,” Vice President JD Vance reposted this claim, and Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino (and the Department of Homeland Security in a social media post) said it “looks like” Pretti “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” But nobody has shown any evidence that Pretti sought to kill anyone, let alone perpetrate a massacre.
• Patel suggested that Pretti broke the law by carrying a concealed gun at a protest, but the Minneapolis police chief said Pretti had a permit to carry the gun and was allowed to have it on him as he was protesting in a public place.

Pretti’s parents issued a statement on Saturday saying, “The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting.” And in television interviews on Sunday, the administration declined to repeat some of its most incendiary allegations from Saturday about Pretti, who was a registered nurse in an intensive care unit at a Veterans Affairs facility.

Here is a look at how the Trump team’s shifting rhetoric squares with what is known about Pretti and the circumstances around his death.

The administration claimed that Pretti ‘attacked’ officers. But videos don’t show Pretti committing any attack

Noem told reporters Saturday: “This individual impeded the law enforcement officers and attacked them,” repeating the phrase “attacked them” moments later for emphasis. When Patel was asked about the shooting in a Sunday interview on Fox News, he responded, “You do not get to attack law enforcement officials in this country without any repercussions.”

No video of the incident available as of Sunday afternoon showed Pretti attacking officers.

Various footage shows him directing traffic at the site of an immigration enforcement operation, yelling at a federal agent who was interacting with other bystanders to “not push them into the traffic,” holding up a cell phone appearing to record agents, and stepping in front of an agent to intervene as the agent shoved a woman to the ground; Pretti appeared to make momentary contact with the agent with his right arm and left hand.

The agent then sprayed him with a chemical irritant and dragged him to the ground; other officers joined in the confrontation as Pretti appeared to resist, and one agent appeared to strike him repeatedly as he was on the ground.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Bovino claimed Pretti “assaulted federal officers.” But when Bash pressed Bovino to explain what moment in the video showed Pretti committing such an assault, Bovino would not provide any specifics.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Trump administration’s false claims and shifting rhetoric about the killing of Alex Pretti | CNN Politics

No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead

Analysis by Zachary Wolf, 4 hr ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

Worried about losing unified Republican power in Washington and mystified at his lack of support among the public, President Donald Trump keeps talking about not holding the November midterm elections, when Republicans could lose control of the House, Senate or both.

Trump doesn’t understand why his approval rating is underwater (and it is, on every issue, in a CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released Friday).

“I wish you could explain to me what the hell’s going on with the mind of the public,” he told House Republicans in a speech earlier this month.

Later, he added: “Now, I won’t say, ‘Cancel the election. They should cancel the election,’ because the fake news will say, ‘He wants the elections canceled. He’s a dictator.’”

But Trump did talk about canceling the election in an interview with Reuters this week. He said Republicans have been so successful that “when you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the president was “joking” and “being facetious” about canceling the election.

If it’s a joke, it’s material he’s been working on for months. Told during an appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last September that Ukraine won’t hold an election during a period of martial law during its war with Russia, Trump expressed some envy.

“So you say during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump said. “So let me just say, three and a half years from now – so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that’s good.”

People laughed.

Sometimes they’re jokes, sometimes not

Trump routinely says things that seem like trolls until they don’t. Owning Greenland? Not a joke. However, he seems to have retreated from the oft-repeated idea of an unconstitutional third term.

And for the record, unlike Ukraine, the US has held elections in the midst of multiple wars, when the British had invaded in 1812 and when it was at war with itself in 1864. It held elections during world wars when millions of Americans fought overseas in the 20th century as well.

It makes sense that Trump would dread the November midterms

Trump knows that presidents rarely pick up seats in a midterm. His administration has been moving at breakneck speed to change the government because, as his chief of staff famously said, they know that presidents expect to lose power after their first two years. A net loss of just a handful of seats would give control of the House to Democrats, for instance, requiring their buy-in for spending and giving them power to investigate his administration.

Presidents do not have the power to delay or cancel elections

The Constitution requires that a new Congress be sworn in on January 3, 2027. Election Day is set in law, so it is theoretically feasible for Congress to move it, but not to cancel the election. Elections are supposed to be administered by each state, so state governors and legislatures could, in theory, move their own elections to deal with a major disaster, but there’s no precedent for it. To get into the weeds of all of this, read a report from the Congressional Research Service.

The president’s distrust of US elections is legendary

Trump has also mused about using emergency powers to meddle with elections. He told the New York Times recently that he regrets not directing National Guards to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.

Even the elections he has won, he has said were rigged. There’s still no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, even after all these years of the Trump era.

People are talking about doomsday election scenarios

Election officials say they are thinking very carefully about all of this. Asked about Trump’s musings at an event sponsored by The Atlantic this week, Arizona’s top election official, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said this:

“Look, you can’t cancel the election… We’ve got a whole bunch of scenarios that we’re playing through to make sure that we’re prepared for the types of processes that might be necessary to preserve our democracy so that if somebody tries to cancel something, if somebody tries to take some stuff they’re not entitled to, we can go to the courts, get the orders, and hopefully have the backup of law enforcement to make sure that we can move forward through this.”

“The fact that we’re running through these scenarios in the first place should tell you something about the health of our democracy,” Fontes added.

To that end, he would not elaborate on what scenarios they’re preparing for.

“I don’t want to give the bad guys any ideas,” Fontes said.

President Donald Trump speaks during the House Republican Party member retreat at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2026.Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

What Trump is actually doing about the next election

While Trump might fantasize about canceling the election, the reality is that the election system is already changing in some key ways. Some of them may be enormously consequential.

The redistricting war Trump kicked off continues to rage

Republicans have drawn themselves nine more friendly seats across the country, and Democrats have ended up with six, mostly in California. Republicans see additional opportunity in Florida, while Democrats plan a redistricting ballot initiative in Virginia in April. Read more.

If the Supreme Court decides to further gut the Voting Rights Act, Republicans could in theory redraw maps in many other states. Read takeaways from October’s oral arguments.

Expect a very different House in the near future

The long-term result of more and more political gerrymandering without protections for racial minority-focused districts could be the smothering of minority-party delegations in multiple states, making the House map look increasingly more like the presidential map. Far fewer Democratic districts in Texas. Far fewer Republican districts in California — even though there are millions of both Republicans and Democrats in both states.

Trump wants vastly more control over how states conduct elections

While much of the effort has been stopped, for now, by courts, Trump’s goal is to exert more executive control over elections that are supposed to be governed by Congress and states.

A federal court on Thursday sided with California against the administration’s demand that the state turn over information on its 23 million voters.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether mail-in ballots that are postmarked by, but arrive after Election Day can still be counted. The decision could have serious consequences for the country’s large scale adoption of mail-in voting in recent years. Trump is a loud skeptic of the practice even though he has personally voted by mail. His executive order would also scramble how states use voting machines, another response to phantom voter fraud that could actually drastically slow down the counting of ballots.

Trump has chipped away at election oversight

Early on, his administration scaled back the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, which is meant to helps states guard their election systems from attack. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceled funding for an information sharing network that helped states detect and ward off coordinated hacking attacks, as CNN reported last year.

His Justice Department has rewired the agency’s Civil Rights Division away from its original core mission of civil rights abuses, including those related to elections. One current focus of the division is to help states “clean” voter rolls, although a judge recently ruled that effort was a misapplication of the Civil Rights Act.

Trump’s administration has already tried to change how people vote through executive action, and who they vote for through changing maps.

There’s a lot of time for more gaming the system between now and November, and Trump clearly already has the midterms on the brain.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead | CNN Politics

No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead

Analysis by Zachary Wolf, 4 hr ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

Worried about losing unified Republican power in Washington and mystified at his lack of support among the public, President Donald Trump keeps talking about not holding the November midterm elections, when Republicans could lose control of the House, Senate or both.

Trump doesn’t understand why his approval rating is underwater (and it is, on every issue, in a CNN Poll conducted by SSRS and released Friday).

“I wish you could explain to me what the hell’s going on with the mind of the public,” he told House Republicans in a speech earlier this month.

Later, he added: “Now, I won’t say, ‘Cancel the election. They should cancel the election,’ because the fake news will say, ‘He wants the elections canceled. He’s a dictator.’”

But Trump did talk about canceling the election in an interview with Reuters this week. He said Republicans have been so successful that “when you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the president was “joking” and “being facetious” about canceling the election.

If it’s a joke, it’s material he’s been working on for months. Told during an appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last September that Ukraine won’t hold an election during a period of martial law during its war with Russia, Trump expressed some envy.

“So you say during the war, you can’t have elections,” Trump said. “So let me just say, three and a half years from now – so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections? Oh, that’s good.”

People laughed.

Sometimes they’re jokes, sometimes not

Trump routinely says things that seem like trolls until they don’t. Owning Greenland? Not a joke. However, he seems to have retreated from the oft-repeated idea of an unconstitutional third term.

And for the record, unlike Ukraine, the US has held elections in the midst of multiple wars, when the British had invaded in 1812 and when it was at war with itself in 1864. It held elections during world wars when millions of Americans fought overseas in the 20th century as well.

It makes sense that Trump would dread the November midterms

Trump knows that presidents rarely pick up seats in a midterm. His administration has been moving at breakneck speed to change the government because, as his chief of staff famously said, they know that presidents expect to lose power after their first two years. A net loss of just a handful of seats would give control of the House to Democrats, for instance, requiring their buy-in for spending and giving them power to investigate his administration.

Presidents do not have the power to delay or cancel elections

The Constitution requires that a new Congress be sworn in on January 3, 2027. Election Day is set in law, so it is theoretically feasible for Congress to move it, but not to cancel the election. Elections are supposed to be administered by each state, so state governors and legislatures could, in theory, move their own elections to deal with a major disaster, but there’s no precedent for it. To get into the weeds of all of this, read a report from the Congressional Research Service.

The president’s distrust of US elections is legendary

Trump has also mused about using emergency powers to meddle with elections. He told the New York Times recently that he regrets not directing National Guards to seize voting machines after the 2020 election.

Even the elections he has won, he has said were rigged. There’s still no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, even after all these years of the Trump era.

People are talking about doomsday election scenarios

Election officials say they are thinking very carefully about all of this. Asked about Trump’s musings at an event sponsored by The Atlantic this week, Arizona’s top election official, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, said this:

“Look, you can’t cancel the election… We’ve got a whole bunch of scenarios that we’re playing through to make sure that we’re prepared for the types of processes that might be necessary to preserve our democracy so that if somebody tries to cancel something, if somebody tries to take some stuff they’re not entitled to, we can go to the courts, get the orders, and hopefully have the backup of law enforcement to make sure that we can move forward through this.”

“The fact that we’re running through these scenarios in the first place should tell you something about the health of our democracy,” Fontes added.

To that end, he would not elaborate on what scenarios they’re preparing for.

“I don’t want to give the bad guys any ideas,” Fontes said.

President Donald Trump speaks during the House Republican Party member retreat at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2026.Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

What Trump is actually doing about the next election

While Trump might fantasize about canceling the election, the reality is that the election system is already changing in some key ways. Some of them may be enormously consequential.

The redistricting war Trump kicked off continues to rage

Republicans have drawn themselves nine more friendly seats across the country, and Democrats have ended up with six, mostly in California. Republicans see additional opportunity in Florida, while Democrats plan a redistricting ballot initiative in Virginia in April. Read more.

If the Supreme Court decides to further gut the Voting Rights Act, Republicans could in theory redraw maps in many other states. Read takeaways from October’s oral arguments.

Expect a very different House in the near future

The long-term result of more and more political gerrymandering without protections for racial minority-focused districts could be the smothering of minority-party delegations in multiple states, making the House map look increasingly more like the presidential map. Far fewer Democratic districts in Texas. Far fewer Republican districts in California — even though there are millions of both Republicans and Democrats in both states.

Trump wants vastly more control over how states conduct elections

While much of the effort has been stopped, for now, by courts, Trump’s goal is to exert more executive control over elections that are supposed to be governed by Congress and states.

A federal court on Thursday sided with California against the administration’s demand that the state turn over information on its 23 million voters.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether mail-in ballots that are postmarked by, but arrive after Election Day can still be counted. The decision could have serious consequences for the country’s large scale adoption of mail-in voting in recent years. Trump is a loud skeptic of the practice even though he has personally voted by mail. His executive order would also scramble how states use voting machines, another response to phantom voter fraud that could actually drastically slow down the counting of ballots.

Trump has chipped away at election oversight

Early on, his administration scaled back the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, which is meant to helps states guard their election systems from attack. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceled funding for an information sharing network that helped states detect and ward off coordinated hacking attacks, as CNN reported last year.

His Justice Department has rewired the agency’s Civil Rights Division away from its original core mission of civil rights abuses, including those related to elections. One current focus of the division is to help states “clean” voter rolls, although a judge recently ruled that effort was a misapplication of the Civil Rights Act.

Trump’s administration has already tried to change how people vote through executive action, and who they vote for through changing maps.

There’s a lot of time for more gaming the system between now and November, and Trump clearly already has the midterms on the brain.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: No, Trump can’t cancel the midterms. He’s doing this instead | CNN Politics

CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities

By Ariel Edwards-Levy, Jennifer Agiesta, and Edward Wu, 13 hr ago

Public opinion on nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House is negative, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds, with a majority of Americans saying Trump is focused on the wrong priorities and doing too little to address cost of living.

A majority, 58%, calls the first year of Trump’s term a failure.

There’s hardly any good news in the poll for Trump or the Republican Party entering a critical midterm year, with the president’s handling of the economy looming as the defining issue in key House and Senate races.

Asked to choose the country’s top issue, Americans pick the economy by a nearly two-to-one margin over any other topic. The poll suggests Trump is struggling to prove that he’s addressing it. And it finds broad concerns over Trump’s use of presidential power and his efforts to put his stamp on American culture.

Views of economic conditions have remained stable — and largely negative — for the past two years, with about 3 in 10 rating the economy positively. What’s changed in the latest poll is the increased pessimism about the future: Just over 4 in 10 expect the economy to be good a year from now, down from 56% just before Trump was sworn in last January.

A 55% majority say that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, with just 32% saying they’ve made an improvement. Most, 64%, say he hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods. Even within the GOP, about half say that he should be doing more, including 42% among Republicans and Republican-leaners who describe themselves as members of the “Make America Great Again” movement.

Much of the public doubts that Trump is prioritizing their interests. Just 36% now say he has had the right priorities, down from 45% near the beginning of his term. Only one-third of Americans now say they believe that Trump cares about people like them, down from 40% last March and the worst rating of his political career.

Only 37% say that Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. That includes more than one-quarter of those who approve of Trump’s presidency overall but don’t feel he’s in touch with their problems.

“Even if he is doing some good in areas, he comes across very self-seeking and (shows a) lack of caring about the common good of our citizens,” wrote one person, an independent from Oklahoma, who responded to the poll.

Fewer than half say that Trump has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively, and just 35% call him someone they’re proud to have as president.

Trump retains his base but has little support beyond it

Trump’s overall job approval rating now stands at 39%, with public opinion on nearly every aspect of his presidency stagnating in the negative. His ratings, which held around 48% last February, declined within the first 100 days of his second term, and have since remained in the low 40s or high 30s.

In some ways, Trump now faces a political situation not dissimilar from his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who also struggled to convince Americans he was tackling economic concerns.

Related article CNN Poll: Most Americans are discontented with Biden, the economy and the state of the country 5 min read

In contrast to Biden, who garnered more tepidly positive ratings even among many Democrats, Trump retains robust support within his own base. Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s performance, and roughly half strongly approve. Among self-described members of the MAGA movement, which includes roughly 40% of GOP aligned-adults, support for Trump is nearly universal.

“He’s not perfect but he’s actually getting results in what he’s doing,” wrote a Republican from Tennessee who responded to the poll.

But Trump’s approval rating among independents now stands at just 29% and he holds virtually no support among Democrats. Only 30% of Latinos and adults younger than 35 now approve, down from 41% among both typically more Democratic groups near the start of his term.

During his first term, Trump’s approval rating on the economy regularly exceeded his overall performance ratings. At the start of his second term, his numbers on immigration stood out as a positive and it remains a key driver for those who support him. Immigration is the most cited issue when Americans who approve of his handling of the presidency are asked to explain why.

But among the broader public, approval ratings suggest henow lacks a similar signature issue.On every issue tested in the poll – an array that included the economy, immigration, foreign policy, management of the federal government and health care – his rating was within a 3-point range of his overall 39% rating.

Most say Trump’s use of power has gone too far

While Americans call the economy their foremost concern, American democracy ranks as a clear second – and among Democrats, it’s a top issue. It also stands at the top of the list of reasons why Americans disapprove of the president’s performance. About a quarter of those who disapprove of Trump say they do so because of his misuse of presidential power or treatment of American democracy.

A 58% majority of the public says that Trump has gone too far in using the power of the presidency and executive branch, up from 52% near the start of his term last year. Most also say he’s gone too far in trying to change cultural institutions like the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center (62%) and cutting federal programs (57%), with about half saying he’s gone too far in changing the way that the US government works.

 At the same time, the share who expect Trump’s presidency to fundamentally change America has declined from 52% last April to 41% now. While most still believe that his second term will significantly change the country, increased numbers now say they’re expecting the changes he makes to eventually fade.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS online and by phone from January 9-12 among a random national sample of 1,209 adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities | CNN Politics

CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities – CNN Politics

Politics 5 min read

CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities

By Ariel Edwards-Levy, Jennifer Agiesta, and Edward Wu, 13 hr ago

Public opinion on nearly every aspect of President Donald Trump’s first year back in the White House is negative, a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS finds, with a majority of Americans saying Trump is focused on the wrong priorities and doing too little to address cost of living.

A majority, 58%, calls the first year of Trump’s term a failure.

There’s hardly any good news in the poll for Trump or the Republican Party entering a critical midterm year, with the president’s handling of the economy looming as the defining issue in key House and Senate races.

Asked to choose the country’s top issue, Americans pick the economy by a nearly two-to-one margin over any other topic. The poll suggests Trump is struggling to prove that he’s addressing it. And it finds broad concerns over Trump’s use of presidential power and his efforts to put his stamp on American culture.

Views of economic conditions have remained stable — and largely negative — for the past two years, with about 3 in 10 rating the economy positively. What’s changed in the latest poll is the increased pessimism about the future: Just over 4 in 10 expect the economy to be good a year from now, down from 56% just before Trump was sworn in last January.

A 55% majority say that Trump’s policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, with just 32% saying they’ve made an improvement. Most, 64%, say he hasn’t gone far enough in trying to reduce the price of everyday goods. Even within the GOP, about half say that he should be doing more, including 42% among Republicans and Republican-leaners who describe themselves as members of the “Make America Great Again” movement.

Much of the public doubts that Trump is prioritizing their interests. Just 36% now say he has had the right priorities, down from 45% near the beginning of his term. Only one-third of Americans now say they believe that Trump cares about people like them, down from 40% last March and the worst rating of his political career.

Only 37% say that Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. That includes more than one-quarter of those who approve of Trump’s presidency overall but don’t feel he’s in touch with their problems.

“Even if he is doing some good in areas, he comes across very self-seeking and (shows a) lack of caring about the common good of our citizens,” wrote one person, an independent from Oklahoma, who responded to the poll.

Fewer than half say that Trump has the stamina and sharpness to serve effectively, and just 35% call him someone they’re proud to have as president.

Trump retains his base but has little support beyond it

Trump’s overall job approval rating now stands at 39%, with public opinion on nearly every aspect of his presidency stagnating in the negative. His ratings, which held around 48% last February, declined within the first 100 days of his second term, and have since remained in the low 40s or high 30s.

In some ways, Trump now faces a political situation not dissimilar from his predecessor, former President Joe Biden, who also struggled to convince Americans he was tackling economic concerns.

Related article CNN Poll: Most Americans are discontented with Biden, the economy and the state of the country 5 min read

In contrast to Biden, who garnered more tepidly positive ratings even among many Democrats, Trump retains robust support within his own base. Nearly 9 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s performance, and roughly half strongly approve. Among self-described members of the MAGA movement, which includes roughly 40% of GOP aligned-adults, support for Trump is nearly universal.

“He’s not perfect but he’s actually getting results in what he’s doing,” wrote a Republican from Tennessee who responded to the poll.

But Trump’s approval rating among independents now stands at just 29% and he holds virtually no support among Democrats. Only 30% of Latinos and adults younger than 35 now approve, down from 41% among both typically more Democratic groups near the start of his term.

During his first term, Trump’s approval rating on the economy regularly exceeded his overall performance ratings. At the start of his second term, his numbers on immigration stood out as a positive and it remains a key driver for those who support him. Immigration is the most cited issue when Americans who approve of his handling of the presidency are asked to explain why.

But among the broader public, approval ratings suggest henow lacks a similar signature issue.On every issue tested in the poll – an array that included the economy, immigration, foreign policy, management of the federal government and health care – his rating was within a 3-point range of his overall 39% rating.

Most say Trump’s use of power has gone too far

While Americans call the economy their foremost concern, American democracy ranks as a clear second – and among Democrats, it’s a top issue. It also stands at the top of the list of reasons why Americans disapprove of the president’s performance. About a quarter of those who disapprove of Trump say they do so because of his misuse of presidential power or treatment of American democracy.

A 58% majority of the public says that Trump has gone too far in using the power of the presidency and executive branch, up from 52% near the start of his term last year. Most also say he’s gone too far in trying to change cultural institutions like the Smithsonian and the Kennedy Center (62%) and cutting federal programs (57%), with about half saying he’s gone too far in changing the way that the US government works.

 At the same time, the share who expect Trump’s presidency to fundamentally change America has declined from 52% last April to 41% now. While most still believe that his second term will significantly change the country, increased numbers now say they’re expecting the changes he makes to eventually fade.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS online and by phone from January 9-12 among a random national sample of 1,209 adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: CNN poll finds majority of Americans say Trump is focused on the wrong priorities | CNN Politics

Trump sued over East Wing demolition | CNN Politics

Politics 3 min read

Trump sued over East Wing demolition

By Kevin Liptak

Updated 10 hr ago

An excavator works to clear rubble after the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, on October 23.Eric Lee/Getty Images

The nation’s top historic preservation group is suing the Trump administration to block construction of President Donald Trump’s plans for a massive new White House ballroom until review boards weigh in on the project.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered non-profit tasked with preserving historic buildings, said it was bringing the suit because its previous letter urging a pause on the project had gone unheeded.

The group, which alleges the construction project is “unlawful,” is asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to halt further activity until the administration complies with review processes, including a public comment period.

“The White House is arguably the most evocative building in our country and a globally recognized symbol of our powerful American ideals. As the organization charged with protecting places where our history happened, the National Trust was compelled to file this case,” said Carol Quillen, the group’s president and CEO.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump sued over East Wing demolition | CNN Politics

#CNN #CNNPolitics #NationalTrustForHistoricPreservation #Sued #Trump

Trump sued over East Wing demolition | CNN Politics

Politics 3 min read

Trump sued over East Wing demolition

By Kevin Liptak

Updated 10 hr ago

An excavator works to clear rubble after the demolition of the East Wing of the White House, on October 23.Eric Lee/Getty Images

The nation’s top historic preservation group is suing the Trump administration to block construction of President Donald Trump’s plans for a massive new White House ballroom until review boards weigh in on the project.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a congressionally chartered non-profit tasked with preserving historic buildings, said it was bringing the suit because its previous letter urging a pause on the project had gone unheeded.

The group, which alleges the construction project is “unlawful,” is asking the US District Court for the District of Columbia to halt further activity until the administration complies with review processes, including a public comment period.

“The White House is arguably the most evocative building in our country and a globally recognized symbol of our powerful American ideals. As the organization charged with protecting places where our history happened, the National Trust was compelled to file this case,” said Carol Quillen, the group’s president and CEO.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump sued over East Wing demolition | CNN Politics

#CNN #CNNPolitics #NationalTrustForHistoricPreservation #Sued #Trump

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump – CNN Politics

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump

Politics• 4 min read

Analysis by Aaron Blake, 10 hr ago

If President Donald Trump has nothing to hide vis-à-vis Jeffrey Epstein, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the convicted sex offender, but he’s doing a great job of looking suspicious.

And that could be a political problem in and of itself – regardless of whatever ultimately comes from the Epstein files.

A batch of newly released Epstein emails on Wednesday added details about Trump’s past relationship with Epstein but no smoking guns. (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing.”)

In one of those emails from 2011, Epstein expressed surprise to accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that Trump’s name hadn’t surfaced amid accusations involving Epstein. Epstein added that Trump had at one point spent hours with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s house.

Related article Takeaways from the new Epstein emails mentioning Trump

And in 2019, Epstein appeared to signal Trump was quite aware of Maxwell recruiting girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 2000s, saying “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

While some have claimed these emails show Trump had knowledge of or even involvement in Epstein’s crimes, it’s not nearly so evident. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, has acknowledged meeting Trump and never accused him of wrongdoing. And Trump has acknowledged being aware of Maxwell recruiting employees including Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago. (The big question there is whether Trump had any inkling about what Maxwell was recruiting a minor female like Giuffre for.)

But also notable on Wednesday was Trump’s reaction.

As all this was going down, he and his White House seemed preoccupied with what appeared to an 11th-hour campaign to thwart a House discharge petition that would force a vote on releasing the full Epstein files.

With the petition due to get a decisive 218th signature when a new Democratic member of Congress was sworn in later that day, the White House held a meeting in the Situation Room with a key GOP lawmaker who’d signed on, while another said she was playing phone tag with the president. Both GOP congresswomen later told CNN Trump hadn’t personally lobbied them to remove their names. But the president also publicly pressured Republicans who sided with Democrats on forcing Epstein disclosures.

It was a weird move, to be sure. No Republicans removed their names from the petition, and Speaker Mike Johnson quickly said he would schedule a vote for next week on compelling the Justice Department to release the full files.

Related article Trump is getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Epstein drama

Even if the measure passes in the House, that’s not the end of the story. The GOP-led Senate would still have to take it up, and Trump would still have to sign it. So it’s not like this will cause the imminent release of the documents.

But Trump’s resistance to something his base has long clamored for – and the optics of the Situation Room meeting in particular – would only seem to deepen the huge suspicions that a large number of Americans already harbor about the government covering up Epstein-related matters.

And that gets at the big point here – and the political danger for Trump.

This is merely the latest baffling episode in the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. Among the others:

• The administration’s suspiciously timed, sudden reversal on releasing the files.
• Trump’s belated disclosure of his knowledge of Maxwell’s Mar-a-Lago recruitment.
• Trump’s weird denial of authoring a lewd letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday album.
• His other false claims about Epstein-related matters.
• The administration’s dubious decision to grant an interview with Maxwell, which seemed geared more toward helping Trump than anything else. (Sure enough, the newly released emails undercut Maxwell’s claims about Trump in that interview.)
• The transfer of Maxwell to a minimum-security prison camp that she didn’t appear eligible for without a waiver. The administration still hasn’t explained how this happened, months later. And CNN’s MJ Lee reported Thursday that Maxwell is getting special treatment there.

Even if Trump doesn’t have anything to hide, the danger here is in making it look a whole lot like he does.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump | CNN Politics

#2025 #america #cnn #cnnPolitics #denials #donaldTrump #education #epstein #epsteinFiles #falseClaims #ghislaineMaxwell #health #history #jeffreyEpstein #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #maxwellInterview #opinion #politics #prison #resistance #science #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump – CNN Politics

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump

Politics• 4 min read

Analysis by Aaron Blake, 10 hr ago

If President Donald Trump has nothing to hide vis-à-vis Jeffrey Epstein, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the convicted sex offender, but he’s doing a great job of looking suspicious.

And that could be a political problem in and of itself – regardless of whatever ultimately comes from the Epstein files.

A batch of newly released Epstein emails on Wednesday added details about Trump’s past relationship with Epstein but no smoking guns. (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing.”)

In one of those emails from 2011, Epstein expressed surprise to accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that Trump’s name hadn’t surfaced amid accusations involving Epstein. Epstein added that Trump had at one point spent hours with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s house.

Related article Takeaways from the new Epstein emails mentioning Trump

And in 2019, Epstein appeared to signal Trump was quite aware of Maxwell recruiting girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 2000s, saying “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

While some have claimed these emails show Trump had knowledge of or even involvement in Epstein’s crimes, it’s not nearly so evident. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, has acknowledged meeting Trump and never accused him of wrongdoing. And Trump has acknowledged being aware of Maxwell recruiting employees including Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago. (The big question there is whether Trump had any inkling about what Maxwell was recruiting a minor female like Giuffre for.)

But also notable on Wednesday was Trump’s reaction.

As all this was going down, he and his White House seemed preoccupied with what appeared to an 11th-hour campaign to thwart a House discharge petition that would force a vote on releasing the full Epstein files.

With the petition due to get a decisive 218th signature when a new Democratic member of Congress was sworn in later that day, the White House held a meeting in the Situation Room with a key GOP lawmaker who’d signed on, while another said she was playing phone tag with the president. Both GOP congresswomen later told CNN Trump hadn’t personally lobbied them to remove their names. But the president also publicly pressured Republicans who sided with Democrats on forcing Epstein disclosures.

It was a weird move, to be sure. No Republicans removed their names from the petition, and Speaker Mike Johnson quickly said he would schedule a vote for next week on compelling the Justice Department to release the full files.

Related article Trump is getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Epstein drama

Even if the measure passes in the House, that’s not the end of the story. The GOP-led Senate would still have to take it up, and Trump would still have to sign it. So it’s not like this will cause the imminent release of the documents.

But Trump’s resistance to something his base has long clamored for – and the optics of the Situation Room meeting in particular – would only seem to deepen the huge suspicions that a large number of Americans already harbor about the government covering up Epstein-related matters.

And that gets at the big point here – and the political danger for Trump.

This is merely the latest baffling episode in the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. Among the others:

• The administration’s suspiciously timed, sudden reversal on releasing the files.
• Trump’s belated disclosure of his knowledge of Maxwell’s Mar-a-Lago recruitment.
• Trump’s weird denial of authoring a lewd letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday album.
• His other false claims about Epstein-related matters.
• The administration’s dubious decision to grant an interview with Maxwell, which seemed geared more toward helping Trump than anything else. (Sure enough, the newly released emails undercut Maxwell’s claims about Trump in that interview.)
• The transfer of Maxwell to a minimum-security prison camp that she didn’t appear eligible for without a waiver. The administration still hasn’t explained how this happened, months later. And CNN’s MJ Lee reported Thursday that Maxwell is getting special treatment there.

Even if Trump doesn’t have anything to hide, the danger here is in making it look a whole lot like he does.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump | CNN Politics

#2025 #america #cnn #cnnPolitics #denials #donaldTrump #education #epstein #epsteinFiles #falseClaims #ghislaineMaxwell #health #history #jeffreyEpstein #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #maxwellInterview #opinion #politics #prison #resistance #science #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump – CNN Politics

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump

Politics• 4 min read

Analysis by Aaron Blake, 10 hr ago

If President Donald Trump has nothing to hide vis-à-vis Jeffrey Epstein, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the convicted sex offender, but he’s doing a great job of looking suspicious.

And that could be a political problem in and of itself – regardless of whatever ultimately comes from the Epstein files.

A batch of newly released Epstein emails on Wednesday added details about Trump’s past relationship with Epstein but no smoking guns. (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing.”)

In one of those emails from 2011, Epstein expressed surprise to accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that Trump’s name hadn’t surfaced amid accusations involving Epstein. Epstein added that Trump had at one point spent hours with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s house.

Related article Takeaways from the new Epstein emails mentioning Trump

And in 2019, Epstein appeared to signal Trump was quite aware of Maxwell recruiting girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 2000s, saying “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

While some have claimed these emails show Trump had knowledge of or even involvement in Epstein’s crimes, it’s not nearly so evident. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, has acknowledged meeting Trump and never accused him of wrongdoing. And Trump has acknowledged being aware of Maxwell recruiting employees including Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago. (The big question there is whether Trump had any inkling about what Maxwell was recruiting a minor female like Giuffre for.)

But also notable on Wednesday was Trump’s reaction.

As all this was going down, he and his White House seemed preoccupied with what appeared to an 11th-hour campaign to thwart a House discharge petition that would force a vote on releasing the full Epstein files.

With the petition due to get a decisive 218th signature when a new Democratic member of Congress was sworn in later that day, the White House held a meeting in the Situation Room with a key GOP lawmaker who’d signed on, while another said she was playing phone tag with the president. Both GOP congresswomen later told CNN Trump hadn’t personally lobbied them to remove their names. But the president also publicly pressured Republicans who sided with Democrats on forcing Epstein disclosures.

It was a weird move, to be sure. No Republicans removed their names from the petition, and Speaker Mike Johnson quickly said he would schedule a vote for next week on compelling the Justice Department to release the full files.

Related article Trump is getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Epstein drama

Even if the measure passes in the House, that’s not the end of the story. The GOP-led Senate would still have to take it up, and Trump would still have to sign it. So it’s not like this will cause the imminent release of the documents.

But Trump’s resistance to something his base has long clamored for – and the optics of the Situation Room meeting in particular – would only seem to deepen the huge suspicions that a large number of Americans already harbor about the government covering up Epstein-related matters.

And that gets at the big point here – and the political danger for Trump.

This is merely the latest baffling episode in the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. Among the others:

• The administration’s suspiciously timed, sudden reversal on releasing the files.
• Trump’s belated disclosure of his knowledge of Maxwell’s Mar-a-Lago recruitment.
• Trump’s weird denial of authoring a lewd letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday album.
• His other false claims about Epstein-related matters.
• The administration’s dubious decision to grant an interview with Maxwell, which seemed geared more toward helping Trump than anything else. (Sure enough, the newly released emails undercut Maxwell’s claims about Trump in that interview.)
• The transfer of Maxwell to a minimum-security prison camp that she didn’t appear eligible for without a waiver. The administration still hasn’t explained how this happened, months later. And CNN’s MJ Lee reported Thursday that Maxwell is getting special treatment there.

Even if Trump doesn’t have anything to hide, the danger here is in making it look a whole lot like he does.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump | CNN Politics

#2025 #america #cnn #cnnPolitics #denials #donaldTrump #education #epstein #epsteinFiles #falseClaims #ghislaineMaxwell #health #history #jeffreyEpstein #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #maxwellInterview #opinion #politics #prison #resistance #science #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump – CNN Politics

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump

Politics• 4 min read

Analysis by Aaron Blake, 10 hr ago

If President Donald Trump has nothing to hide vis-à-vis Jeffrey Epstein, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the convicted sex offender, but he’s doing a great job of looking suspicious.

And that could be a political problem in and of itself – regardless of whatever ultimately comes from the Epstein files.

A batch of newly released Epstein emails on Wednesday added details about Trump’s past relationship with Epstein but no smoking guns. (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing.”)

In one of those emails from 2011, Epstein expressed surprise to accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that Trump’s name hadn’t surfaced amid accusations involving Epstein. Epstein added that Trump had at one point spent hours with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s house.

Related article Takeaways from the new Epstein emails mentioning Trump

And in 2019, Epstein appeared to signal Trump was quite aware of Maxwell recruiting girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 2000s, saying “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

While some have claimed these emails show Trump had knowledge of or even involvement in Epstein’s crimes, it’s not nearly so evident. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, has acknowledged meeting Trump and never accused him of wrongdoing. And Trump has acknowledged being aware of Maxwell recruiting employees including Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago. (The big question there is whether Trump had any inkling about what Maxwell was recruiting a minor female like Giuffre for.)

But also notable on Wednesday was Trump’s reaction.

As all this was going down, he and his White House seemed preoccupied with what appeared to an 11th-hour campaign to thwart a House discharge petition that would force a vote on releasing the full Epstein files.

With the petition due to get a decisive 218th signature when a new Democratic member of Congress was sworn in later that day, the White House held a meeting in the Situation Room with a key GOP lawmaker who’d signed on, while another said she was playing phone tag with the president. Both GOP congresswomen later told CNN Trump hadn’t personally lobbied them to remove their names. But the president also publicly pressured Republicans who sided with Democrats on forcing Epstein disclosures.

It was a weird move, to be sure. No Republicans removed their names from the petition, and Speaker Mike Johnson quickly said he would schedule a vote for next week on compelling the Justice Department to release the full files.

Related article Trump is getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Epstein drama

Even if the measure passes in the House, that’s not the end of the story. The GOP-led Senate would still have to take it up, and Trump would still have to sign it. So it’s not like this will cause the imminent release of the documents.

But Trump’s resistance to something his base has long clamored for – and the optics of the Situation Room meeting in particular – would only seem to deepen the huge suspicions that a large number of Americans already harbor about the government covering up Epstein-related matters.

And that gets at the big point here – and the political danger for Trump.

This is merely the latest baffling episode in the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. Among the others:

• The administration’s suspiciously timed, sudden reversal on releasing the files.
• Trump’s belated disclosure of his knowledge of Maxwell’s Mar-a-Lago recruitment.
• Trump’s weird denial of authoring a lewd letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday album.
• His other false claims about Epstein-related matters.
• The administration’s dubious decision to grant an interview with Maxwell, which seemed geared more toward helping Trump than anything else. (Sure enough, the newly released emails undercut Maxwell’s claims about Trump in that interview.)
• The transfer of Maxwell to a minimum-security prison camp that she didn’t appear eligible for without a waiver. The administration still hasn’t explained how this happened, months later. And CNN’s MJ Lee reported Thursday that Maxwell is getting special treatment there.

Even if Trump doesn’t have anything to hide, the danger here is in making it look a whole lot like he does.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump | CNN Politics

#2025 #america #cnn #cnnPolitics #denials #donaldTrump #education #epstein #epsteinFiles #falseClaims #ghislaineMaxwell #health #history #jeffreyEpstein #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #maxwellInterview #opinion #politics #prison #resistance #science #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump – CNN Politics

The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump

Politics• 4 min read

Analysis by Aaron Blake, 10 hr ago

If President Donald Trump has nothing to hide vis-à-vis Jeffrey Epstein, he sure has a weird way of showing it.

Trump hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with the convicted sex offender, but he’s doing a great job of looking suspicious.

And that could be a political problem in and of itself – regardless of whatever ultimately comes from the Epstein files.

A batch of newly released Epstein emails on Wednesday added details about Trump’s past relationship with Epstein but no smoking guns. (The White House said the emails “prove absolutely nothing.”)

In one of those emails from 2011, Epstein expressed surprise to accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that Trump’s name hadn’t surfaced amid accusations involving Epstein. Epstein added that Trump had at one point spent hours with Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre at Epstein’s house.

Related article Takeaways from the new Epstein emails mentioning Trump

And in 2019, Epstein appeared to signal Trump was quite aware of Maxwell recruiting girls from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in the early 2000s, saying “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

While some have claimed these emails show Trump had knowledge of or even involvement in Epstein’s crimes, it’s not nearly so evident. Giuffre, who died by suicide in April, has acknowledged meeting Trump and never accused him of wrongdoing. And Trump has acknowledged being aware of Maxwell recruiting employees including Giuffre from Mar-a-Lago. (The big question there is whether Trump had any inkling about what Maxwell was recruiting a minor female like Giuffre for.)

But also notable on Wednesday was Trump’s reaction.

As all this was going down, he and his White House seemed preoccupied with what appeared to an 11th-hour campaign to thwart a House discharge petition that would force a vote on releasing the full Epstein files.

With the petition due to get a decisive 218th signature when a new Democratic member of Congress was sworn in later that day, the White House held a meeting in the Situation Room with a key GOP lawmaker who’d signed on, while another said she was playing phone tag with the president. Both GOP congresswomen later told CNN Trump hadn’t personally lobbied them to remove their names. But the president also publicly pressured Republicans who sided with Democrats on forcing Epstein disclosures.

It was a weird move, to be sure. No Republicans removed their names from the petition, and Speaker Mike Johnson quickly said he would schedule a vote for next week on compelling the Justice Department to release the full files.

Related article Trump is getting pulled deeper and deeper into the Epstein drama

Even if the measure passes in the House, that’s not the end of the story. The GOP-led Senate would still have to take it up, and Trump would still have to sign it. So it’s not like this will cause the imminent release of the documents.

But Trump’s resistance to something his base has long clamored for – and the optics of the Situation Room meeting in particular – would only seem to deepen the huge suspicions that a large number of Americans already harbor about the government covering up Epstein-related matters.

And that gets at the big point here – and the political danger for Trump.

This is merely the latest baffling episode in the administration’s handling of the Epstein files. Among the others:

• The administration’s suspiciously timed, sudden reversal on releasing the files.
• Trump’s belated disclosure of his knowledge of Maxwell’s Mar-a-Lago recruitment.
• Trump’s weird denial of authoring a lewd letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday album.
• His other false claims about Epstein-related matters.
• The administration’s dubious decision to grant an interview with Maxwell, which seemed geared more toward helping Trump than anything else. (Sure enough, the newly released emails undercut Maxwell’s claims about Trump in that interview.)
• The transfer of Maxwell to a minimum-security prison camp that she didn’t appear eligible for without a waiver. The administration still hasn’t explained how this happened, months later. And CNN’s MJ Lee reported Thursday that Maxwell is getting special treatment there.

Even if Trump doesn’t have anything to hide, the danger here is in making it look a whole lot like he does.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The political danger of the Epstein files for Trump | CNN Politics

#2025 #america #cnn #cnnPolitics #denials #donaldTrump #education #epstein #epsteinFiles #falseClaims #ghislaineMaxwell #health #history #jeffreyEpstein #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #maxwellInterview #opinion #politics #prison #resistance #science #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

Trump’s free speech backflip was 250 years in the making | CNN Politics

Politics• 8 min read

Trump’s free speech backflip was 250 years in the making

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, 6 hr ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

“If we don’t have FREE SPEECH, then we just don’t have a FREE COUNTRY,” then-candidate Donald Trump said in a campaign video.

But less than nine months into his second term, he was explaining his administration’s stance this this way:

“We took the freedom of speech away,” he said at a White House event Wednesday as he tried to explain his call to put people who burn the American flag behind bars for years despite a very clear Supreme Court decision that lists flag burning as free speech.

Trump’s complete turnabout on speech is indicative of the contradictions and ironies in the bedrock principle of the American liberties in the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment.

While Trump came to office promising to restore free speech, particularly on college campuses and on social media, he’s now engaged in a multi-front war over what people can say in the US:

► A Ronald Reagan-appointed judge accused Trump’s administration of a “full-throated assault on the First Amendment” for targeting and deporting pro-Palestinian academics.

► Conservative Supreme Court justices were skeptical at oral arguments over a Colorado law that bans debunked LGBT conversion therapy, suggesting it may step on the free speech rights of therapists.

► Trump wants colleges and universities to clamp down on campus speech in exchange for federal funding.

► He applauded his FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, for trying to get Jimmy Kimmel’s show canceled by ABC, an effort that backfired.

► His lawsuits against media companies and law firms, none of which appear to stand on firm legal ground, have nonetheless been wildly successful in extracting settlement payments and sending a message to firms that would oppose him.

► Companies like YouTube have reinstated accounts or made plans to do so for members of his administration, such as FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who were suspended for spreading misinformation during the pandemic.

► His attorney general, Pam Bondi, promised to go after “hate speech” by people who she perceived as celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.

The hate speech element is particularly concerning to experts because in recent decades, it has become a tenet of Supreme Court cases and free speech advocates that “hate speech” is such a nebulous term that leaving it unprotected would invite exactly the type of selective viewpoint-policing that the administration now stands accused of.

The hate speech in question was not any obviously repugnant White supremacist or racist ideology, but rather comments related to Kirk’s death, potentially including those who celebrated it. But we don’t really know since Bondi has not been specific.

Congress undercut the First Amendment almost immediately

US history is full of pendulum swings back and forth between freedom and restriction of speech.

The First Amendment, adopted shortly after the Constitution, guarantees Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

But within a few years, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the president, then John Adams, during the undeclared Quasi War between the US and France.

“The sad truth is, free speech has always been a weaponized slogan, right from the outset, when it’s first invented in the early 18th century,” according to Fara Dabhoiwala, a historian at Princeton University and author of the recent book “What is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea.”

Benjamin Franklin’s grandson Benjamin Franklin Bache was among those arrested for “libeling” Adams under the law. Federalists also threw a Vermont publisher and congressman, Matthew Lyon, in jail for criticizing Adams in print.

(Among other things, Lyon wrote that Adams had “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp,” and, separately, started a fight on the House floor over Adams’ foreign policy. Lyon, attacked with a cane after he spat tobacco juice at a fellow lawmaker, defended himself with fire tongs.)

Far from silencing Lyon, however, the Sedition Act backfired. Lyon ran a successful campaign for Congress from jail. The unpopularity of the clampdown on speech helped lead to Adams’ defeat in the election of 1800.

Running for president from prison

Another wartime restriction on speech, the Sedition Act of 1918, led to the conviction and sentencing to 10 years in prison of the socialist Eugene Debs for his criticism of the draft during World War I.

The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, but Debs ran a presidential campaign from his jail cell in 1920 and got nearly 1 million votes. President Warren G. Harding later commuted Debs’ sentence.

Marketplace of ideas

Courts and people have complex and nuanced views on free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the unanimous majority opinion upholding Debs’ conviction, but he also wrote a key dissent in a case involving the conviction of Russian immigrants who distributed leaflets calling for a general strike in the US to interrupt the war effort.

In that 1919 dissent, he espoused what would become a more absolutist view of the benefits of free speech. “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” he wrote.

Students greet Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the St. James Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, after a federal judge enjoined the city school board from expelling them for participating in civil rights demonstrations.Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

Free speech and civil rights

In the US, the evolution of speech has also turned on issues of race.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s free speech backflip was 250 years in the making | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #Education #FirstAmendment #FreeSpeech #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee | CNN Politics

October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee

By Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand, Jeremy Herb and Casey Gannon, CNN

Updated 2:37 PM EDT, Tue October 7, 2025

What we covered here

• Attorney General Pam Bondi testified for a contentious 4 and a half hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

• Bondi continuously deflected questions from Democrats on controversial issues, including the Jeffery Epstein files, prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey and legal rationale for using the national guard in US cities.

• The hearing comes one day before Comey is set to be arraigned in federal court. His recent indictment by a federal grand jury was an extraordinary escalation in President Donald Trump’s effort to prosecute his political enemies.

20 Posts 5 hr 9 min ago

Our live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has ended for the day. Click here to read the takeaways. 5 hr 9 min ago

Takeaways from Bondi’s 4 and a half hour Senate hearing

From CNN’s Jeremy Herb, Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.Alex Wong/Getty Images

Democrats and Republicans repeatedly talked past one another throughout the hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, pointing fingers across the aisle over who was to blame for weaponizing the Justice Department.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Deflect and attack: Bondi fended off questions on the investigation into accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, National Guard deployments, and investigations into Trump’s political enemies, using quick-one liners to deflect and personal attacks to push back against Democrats.

• Democrats press Bondi on Trump’s influence: Democrats pointed to numerous examples they say show Bondi has failed to keep the Justice Department independent from the whims and wishes of the president.

• Republicans jump on news FBI reviewed senators’ phone records: Several Republican senators pointed to the release of documents the night before Tuesday’s hearing that showed the phone records of eight Republican senators and a House lawmaker were obtained as part of the special counsel’s investigation into Trump and 2020 election interference.

• Bondi and GOP defend going after Comey: Bondi and a former Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee defended the indictment of Comey during Tuesday’s hearing, one day before he’s set to be arraigned on charges that he allegedly lied to Congress in 2020 testimony. Bondi said several times that the Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury that handed up the indictment was a “liberal” one.

Read more.

Editor’s Note: There are a number of blog posts here, and online about Jack Smith. His report is covered. Use this to see the coverage.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #Attack #AttorneyGeneral #CNN #CNNPolitics #Contentious #Defect #Delay #DepartmentOfJustice #DOJ #DonaldTrump #Education #FederalTroops #Health #Hearing #History #Ice #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #PamBondi #Politics #Resistance #Science #SparringSenators #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSenate #UnitedStates

October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee | CNN Politics

October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee

By Hannah Rabinowitz, Holmes Lybrand, Jeremy Herb and Casey Gannon, CNN

Updated 2:37 PM EDT, Tue October 7, 2025

What we covered here

• Attorney General Pam Bondi testified for a contentious 4 and a half hours before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

• Bondi continuously deflected questions from Democrats on controversial issues, including the Jeffery Epstein files, prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey and legal rationale for using the national guard in US cities.

• The hearing comes one day before Comey is set to be arraigned in federal court. His recent indictment by a federal grand jury was an extraordinary escalation in President Donald Trump’s effort to prosecute his political enemies.

20 Posts 5 hr 9 min ago

Our live coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has ended for the day. Click here to read the takeaways. 5 hr 9 min ago

Takeaways from Bondi’s 4 and a half hour Senate hearing

From CNN’s Jeremy Herb, Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee today.Alex Wong/Getty Images

Democrats and Republicans repeatedly talked past one another throughout the hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, pointing fingers across the aisle over who was to blame for weaponizing the Justice Department.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Deflect and attack: Bondi fended off questions on the investigation into accused sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, National Guard deployments, and investigations into Trump’s political enemies, using quick-one liners to deflect and personal attacks to push back against Democrats.

• Democrats press Bondi on Trump’s influence: Democrats pointed to numerous examples they say show Bondi has failed to keep the Justice Department independent from the whims and wishes of the president.

• Republicans jump on news FBI reviewed senators’ phone records: Several Republican senators pointed to the release of documents the night before Tuesday’s hearing that showed the phone records of eight Republican senators and a House lawmaker were obtained as part of the special counsel’s investigation into Trump and 2020 election interference.

• Bondi and GOP defend going after Comey: Bondi and a former Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee defended the indictment of Comey during Tuesday’s hearing, one day before he’s set to be arraigned on charges that he allegedly lied to Congress in 2020 testimony. Bondi said several times that the Alexandria, Virginia, grand jury that handed up the indictment was a “liberal” one.

Read more.

Editor’s Note: There are a number of blog posts here, and online about Jack Smith. His report is covered. Use this to see the coverage.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: October 7, 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi spars with the Senate Judiciary Committee | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #Attack #AttorneyGeneral #CNN #CNNPolitics #Contentious #Defect #Delay #DepartmentOfJustice #DOJ #DonaldTrump #Education #FederalTroops #Health #Hearing #History #Ice #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #PamBondi #Politics #Resistance #Science #SparringSenators #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSenate #UnitedStates

Why Trump’s troop deployments to US cities are such a big deal | CNN Politics

Politics• 7 min read

Why Trump’s troop deployments to US cities are such a big deal

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, 1 hr 25 min ago

In a nation founded on a revolt against tyranny, the notion of American troops being sent onto domestic streets has always evoked a specter of liberty in peril.

This is why most presidents resisted such a step and why President Donald Trump’s insatiable zeal for doing so may be so consequential.

His attempts to send National Guard reservists into Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois, against the wishes of city and state authorities, has the potential to finally create the constitutional crisis his critics have feared for eight months.

It is testing how far Trump can push his Make America Great Again philosophy and his strongman “I alone can fix it” mantra. Originally unveiled at his first GOP convention in 2016, it runs like a spine through his two presidencies.

The transfer of reserve troops from red states such as Texas to Democratic cities will also deepen the chasm and the hostility between conservative rural and liberal urban areas that is an increasingly potent dynamic in America’s divided politics.

Ultimately, a cascade of administration threats and power moves by the White House; fierce pushback from Democratic mayors; and a thicket of legal challenges will show how far the law and the Constitution can contain a president who epitomizes many of the anxieties of the founders about how a politicized executive with a lust for power could threaten their republic.

As so often with the great controversies of the Trump era, the facts are obscured in misinformation, false claims, cumbersome legal arguments and the ambitions of big political players on each side.

But the core issue is quite simple.

• In the latest round of its crime and immigration crackdown, the administration chose two Democratic cities, Chicago and Portland, to which it wants to send troops even though the legal and constitutional conditions that might permit the use of the military in law enforcement are far from met.
• In the latest developments, Trump on Monday formally authorized the deployment of at least 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to Chicago for 60 days.
• Hundreds more reservists are headed from Texas to Chicago after being placed under federal control. City and state authorities sued the administration to stop the deployment.
• A Trump-appointed judge, meanwhile, has temporarily blocked his bid to take control of reservists in Oregon or to ship reservists to Portland from California.
• Court action is frustrating the president. He warned Monday he’d invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act to bypass judges thwarting his ambitions if needed. “If I had to do that, I would do that,” he said from the Oval Office.

What’s behind Trump’s ‘war zone’ rhetoric?

Trump has claimed for months that Portland is “on fire” and that it, Chicago and other American cities are lawless danger zones on a par with Afghanistan.

Just because that’s hyperbole doesn’t mean there aren’t problems.

The record of Democratic mayors and governors is questionable in some cities that have been plagued by crime and homelessness. While crime data might be falling, not all citizens feel safe. Many would prefer more law enforcement. And the Biden administration’s failure to secure the southern border led many voters last year to feel the situation was out of control. The oversight was more surprising since it was obvious that Trump would run on a hardline message on his top issue in the 2024 election.

Rep. Pat Harrigan, a North Carolina Republican and former Green Beret, told Audie Cornish on “CNN This Morning” that claims Trump was overreaching were “overblown.” He said, “Authorities under which these troops are being deployed are limited to protecting ICE facilities and other federal facilities within these cities.”

But Trump’s summoning an inaccurate picture of cities that are “like a war zone.” Officials seem to compete with one another in conjuring new nightmares of urban dystopia based on conservative media doom loops.

Top White House adviser Stephen Miller on Monday used extremely evocative language when arguing that local law enforcement officials are failing to protect federal immigration agents and therefore need military help. He told CNN’s Boris Sanchez that “in Portland, ICE officers have been subjected to over 100 nights of terrorist assault, doxxing, murder threats, violent attack, and every other means imaginable to try to overturn the results of the last election through violence.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Why Trump’s troop deployments to US cities are such a big deal | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #California #Chicago #CNN #CNNPolitics #DC #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Illinois #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #LosAngeles #Opinion #Oregon #Politics #Portland #Resistance #Science #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #WashingtonDC

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Aug 25, 2025

President Donald Trump sees an epidemic of flag burning and says it needs attention.

“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office, declaring it an important issue. He signed an executive order directing his Justice Department to investigate incidents of flag burning where laws are broken.

There are a few problems with his claim, the first of which is that it’s not at all clear they’re burning flags all over the country.

There are incidents of flag burning at protests, surely, such as when pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last year.

That burning drew bipartisan opposition. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the act and said the flag “should never be desecrated in that way.”

‘Sad’ Supreme Court protected flag burning as speech

But beyond the question of whether flags are indeed being burned all over the country is the fact that the Supreme Court, back in 1989, declared flag burning to be a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Trump acknowledged that decision by a “sad” Supreme Court, and his executive order is seemingly written to address the Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions.

The administration will try to prosecute other crimes, like violent crimes, hate crimes and crimes “against property and the peace,” as a way to deter flag burning, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump spoke to that Supreme Court decision when he said the simple act of burning the flag is an incitement.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #AmericanFlag #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #FlagBurning #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Aug 25, 2025

President Donald Trump sees an epidemic of flag burning and says it needs attention.

“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office, declaring it an important issue. He signed an executive order directing his Justice Department to investigate incidents of flag burning where laws are broken.

There are a few problems with his claim, the first of which is that it’s not at all clear they’re burning flags all over the country.

There are incidents of flag burning at protests, surely, such as when pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last year.

That burning drew bipartisan opposition. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the act and said the flag “should never be desecrated in that way.”

‘Sad’ Supreme Court protected flag burning as speech

But beyond the question of whether flags are indeed being burned all over the country is the fact that the Supreme Court, back in 1989, declared flag burning to be a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Trump acknowledged that decision by a “sad” Supreme Court, and his executive order is seemingly written to address the Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions.

The administration will try to prosecute other crimes, like violent crimes, hate crimes and crimes “against property and the peace,” as a way to deter flag burning, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump spoke to that Supreme Court decision when he said the simple act of burning the flag is an incitement.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #AmericanFlag #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #FlagBurning #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Aug 25, 2025

President Donald Trump sees an epidemic of flag burning and says it needs attention.

“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office, declaring it an important issue. He signed an executive order directing his Justice Department to investigate incidents of flag burning where laws are broken.

There are a few problems with his claim, the first of which is that it’s not at all clear they’re burning flags all over the country.

There are incidents of flag burning at protests, surely, such as when pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last year.

That burning drew bipartisan opposition. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the act and said the flag “should never be desecrated in that way.”

‘Sad’ Supreme Court protected flag burning as speech

But beyond the question of whether flags are indeed being burned all over the country is the fact that the Supreme Court, back in 1989, declared flag burning to be a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Trump acknowledged that decision by a “sad” Supreme Court, and his executive order is seemingly written to address the Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions.

The administration will try to prosecute other crimes, like violent crimes, hate crimes and crimes “against property and the peace,” as a way to deter flag burning, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump spoke to that Supreme Court decision when he said the simple act of burning the flag is an incitement.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #AmericanFlag #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #FlagBurning #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Aug 25, 2025

President Donald Trump sees an epidemic of flag burning and says it needs attention.

“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office, declaring it an important issue. He signed an executive order directing his Justice Department to investigate incidents of flag burning where laws are broken.

There are a few problems with his claim, the first of which is that it’s not at all clear they’re burning flags all over the country.

There are incidents of flag burning at protests, surely, such as when pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last year.

That burning drew bipartisan opposition. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the act and said the flag “should never be desecrated in that way.”

‘Sad’ Supreme Court protected flag burning as speech

But beyond the question of whether flags are indeed being burned all over the country is the fact that the Supreme Court, back in 1989, declared flag burning to be a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Trump acknowledged that decision by a “sad” Supreme Court, and his executive order is seemingly written to address the Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions.

The administration will try to prosecute other crimes, like violent crimes, hate crimes and crimes “against property and the peace,” as a way to deter flag burning, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump spoke to that Supreme Court decision when he said the simple act of burning the flag is an incitement.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #AmericanFlag #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #FlagBurning #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Aug 25, 2025

President Donald Trump sees an epidemic of flag burning and says it needs attention.

“All over the country they’re burning flags,” Trump said Monday in the Oval Office, declaring it an important issue. He signed an executive order directing his Justice Department to investigate incidents of flag burning where laws are broken.

There are a few problems with his claim, the first of which is that it’s not at all clear they’re burning flags all over the country.

There are incidents of flag burning at protests, surely, such as when pro-Palestinian protesters burned an American flag alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress last year.

That burning drew bipartisan opposition. Then-Vice President Kamala Harris condemned the act and said the flag “should never be desecrated in that way.”

‘Sad’ Supreme Court protected flag burning as speech

But beyond the question of whether flags are indeed being burned all over the country is the fact that the Supreme Court, back in 1989, declared flag burning to be a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Trump acknowledged that decision by a “sad” Supreme Court, and his executive order is seemingly written to address the Supreme Court’s flag burning decisions.

The administration will try to prosecute other crimes, like violent crimes, hate crimes and crimes “against property and the peace,” as a way to deter flag burning, according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump spoke to that Supreme Court decision when he said the simple act of burning the flag is an incitement.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Donald Trump vs. Antonin Scalia on burning the American flag | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #AmericanFlag #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #FlagBurning #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Live updates: Justice Department releases transcripts from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview | CNN Politics

Live Updates

Justice Department releases transcripts from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview

By Hannah Rabinowitz, Kara Scannell, Katelyn Polantz, Veronica Stracqualursi, Clare Foran, Dan Berman, Aditi Sangal, Elise Hammond, Kaanita Iyer and Marshall Cohen, CNN

Updated 5:26 PM EDT, Fri August 22, 2025

Below is a related video from Forbes:

https://youtu.be/R9m0oUD3z2E

Trump claims he didn’t know or approve Ghislaine Maxwell’s prison transfer 01:12 (see on original article)…

What we’re covering here

• Maxwell transcript: The Justice Department has released a transcript of the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche conducted with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. You can read the full transcript here.

• Terms of the interview: The Justice Department gave Maxwell limited immunity so that she could discuss her criminal case but did not promise any other benefits in exchange for her testimony, according to the transcript.

• Trump and Epstein: In the transcript, Maxwell said she never witnessed anything untoward in Donald Trump’s friendship with Epstein and never heard of any allegations that he acted inappropriately. Shortly before the release, Trump told reporters that he supported transparency in the case.

• Records transfer: Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee has received the first batch of records related to Epstein from the Justice Department, and it contains “thousands of pages of documents,” a spokesperson said this afternoon.

30 Posts 33 min ago

Read the full transcript of Blanche’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell

Scroll below to read the full transcript of the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell.

Here’s the latest round of top lines from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with the Justice Department

From CNN’s Aditi Sangal, Casey Gannon, Katelyn Polantz, Kara Scannell, Marshall Cohen, Sarah Ferris, Kristen Holmes and Alayna Treene

This undated trial evidence image obtained December 8, 2021, from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York shows Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.US District Court for the Southern District of New York

We are recapping the key findings from the released 337-page transcript of the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche conducted with Ghislaine Maxwell last month.

Here’s the latest batch of updates:

No client list: Maxwell said there is no Epstein client list, and gave an explanation, which seemed to confuse Blanche.

Birthday book: She referred to her notes as she tried to recount different financial clients that Epstein kept. When Blanche asked about the notes, Maxwell’s attorney responded, “not the birthday book,” appearing to crack a joke about a reported collection of letters Maxwell had compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday that included one bearing Donald Trump’s name. Trump has repeatedly denied writing the letter and sued The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the letter, for defamation.

Bizarre exchange: Maxwell acknowledged that Epstein preferred younger women, of legal age, but said he liked them not because of anything sexual but because they were “invigorating” and “up to date on music” and brought new “ideas” to the table.

Bill Clinton: Maxwell said to her knowledge that the former president never received a massage while in her presence and never went to Epstein’s private island.

Admiring Trump: Maxwell complimented Trump for “his extraordinary achievement” of becoming president. She said she only visited Mar-a-Lago once or twice, for an event, alone. Epstein, who she described to be in closer touch with Trump than her, visited separately.

Meanwhile, in the present-day Trump world: The president’s team discussed releasing the audio and transcripts for several weeks, officials familiar with the matter told CNN. Many in the administration argued against resurfacing the Epstein story, but others insisted that releasing the material would help them better control the narrative.

Read more: Live updates: Justice Department releases transcripts from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview | CNN Politics

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Live updates: Justice Department releases transcripts from Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #BillClinton #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #GhislaineMaxwell #Health #History #JeffreyEpstein #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Reading #Resistance #Science #Transcripts #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USDepartmentOfJustice #UnitedStates #YouTube

Trump’s remarkable statement against states’ rights | CNN Politics

Trump’s remarkable statement against states’ rights

President Donald Trump’s announcement Monday that he will sign an executive order aimed at getting rid of mail-in ballots and voting machines seems unlikely to amount to much. He doesn’t appear to have any such authority, and legal challenges would surely follow.

But it was instructive in one way: It made clear the president elected to lead the party of states’ rights has very little regard for states’ rights.

Indeed, he almost seems to disdain them.

It’s difficult to read his comments any other way, especially as he has spent much of his second term attempting to chip away at states’ rights — or at least, the ones he doesn’t like.

While selling his new pitch to get rid of mail-in voting and voting machines, Trump included this remarkable pair of sentences.

“Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”

Trump has described the states as “agents” of the federal government before in this context, but without casting them as subservient to him personally.

This is a rather novel take on the Constitution, to put it mildly.

As CNN’s Daniel Dale notes, the Constitution says the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Congress has a role, in that the Constitution says it can “make or alter such Regulations.” But there is no role for the president.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s remarkable statement against states’ rights | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #Elections #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #NationalElections #Politics #Resistance #Science #StateLegislatures #StateRights #StatesRights #Steal2026 #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Updated 11 hr ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

It’s not news that the government is using withheld federal funds, the threat of blocked mergers and other strong-arm tactics to exploit pressure points and impose President Donald Trump’s version of diversity on the country.

It is new that the efforts are yielding results.

In higher education: The Department of Justice has transformed its Civil Rights Division into a strike team against what it views as unwarranted and illegal diversity efforts in higher education.

In private enterprise: The Federal Communications Commission approved a $6 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance only after in-writing promises to dismantle diversity initiatives.

In the media: That Paramount merger also hinged on commitments that CBS News’ “reporting will be fair, unbiased, and fact-based.” Given the furor raised by Trump and others over “60 Minutes,” the implication is that there will be changes. Read CNN’s full report.

Just as its parent company was agreeing to a diversity of opinions in programming, CBS also, coincidentally, cited financial losses to cancel “The Late Show” with Trump critic Stephen Colbert, who called Paramount’s settling of a lawsuit with Trump related to “60 Minutes” a “big fat bribe.”

In sports: There’s no evidence yet that Trump is willing to follow through on his threat to hold up a new stadium for Washington’s football team, now called the Commanders, unless owners revert to calling it the Redskins. The team has rejected the idea. Then again, pre-season camps are just now underway and Trump has been out of the country.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #Books #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #DEI #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Racism #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #Weaponized

Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity | CNN Politics

Politics• 5 min read

Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity

Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, Updated 11 hr ago

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

It’s not news that the government is using withheld federal funds, the threat of blocked mergers and other strong-arm tactics to exploit pressure points and impose President Donald Trump’s version of diversity on the country.

It is new that the efforts are yielding results.

In higher education: The Department of Justice has transformed its Civil Rights Division into a strike team against what it views as unwarranted and illegal diversity efforts in higher education.

In private enterprise: The Federal Communications Commission approved a $6 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance only after in-writing promises to dismantle diversity initiatives.

In the media: That Paramount merger also hinged on commitments that CBS News’ “reporting will be fair, unbiased, and fact-based.” Given the furor raised by Trump and others over “60 Minutes,” the implication is that there will be changes. Read CNN’s full report.

Just as its parent company was agreeing to a diversity of opinions in programming, CBS also, coincidentally, cited financial losses to cancel “The Late Show” with Trump critic Stephen Colbert, who called Paramount’s settling of a lawsuit with Trump related to “60 Minutes” a “big fat bribe.”

In sports: There’s no evidence yet that Trump is willing to follow through on his threat to hold up a new stadium for Washington’s football team, now called the Commanders, unless owners revert to calling it the Redskins. The team has rejected the idea. Then again, pre-season camps are just now underway and Trump has been out of the country.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump has weaponized the government to replace ‘wokeness’ with his version of diversity | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #Books #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #DEI #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Racism #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #Weaponized

Watch: Newly uncovered photos show Jeffrey Epstein attended Trump’s wedding in 1993 | CNN Politics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1rFrQeyAuw&ab_channel=CNN

Erin Burnett Out Front

Photos from Trump’s 1993 wedding and video footage from 1999

Victoria’s Secret fashion show shed light on the Trump-Epstein relationship.

CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski has the story. 03:16 – Source: CNN

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Watch: Newly uncovered photos show Jeffrey Epstein attended Trump’s wedding in 1993 | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #Epstein #EpsteinFiles #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Technology #Television #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpEpsteinHistory #UnitedStates #YouTube

Trump’s Epstein nightmare worsens amid new revelations and a GOP revolt | CNN Politics

Politics• 10 min read

Trump’s Epstein nightmare worsens amid new revelations and a GOP revolt

Analysis by Stephen Collinson, Updated 4 hr ago

The Jeffrey Epstein morass surrounding President Donald Trump is deepening amid growing defiance by some Republicans and despite the administration’s most inflammatory attempt yet at distraction.

New reports Wednesday that Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump in May that his name appeared in documents related to the case of Epstein, an accused sex trafficker, offered a plausible explanation for the president’s growing fury over the drama.

They will fuel accusations of a cover-up since the administration has refused to release the files.

And although there is no evidence that Trump was involved in any wrongdoing or that he knew of Epstein’s criminal activities when they ran in the same social circle decades ago, there is bound to be intense speculation about the nature of mentions about the president in the investigative files.

The storm is also intensifying in Congress.

A vote in the House Oversight Committee to subpoena the Department of Justice for files related to Epstein worsened Trump’s political headache, since it revealed the appetite for more disclosure among some MAGA Republicans. The GOP-majority committee also voted to subpoena testimony from Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison term.

Trump responded to the ballooning crisis with the oldest trick in his political book, pushing a conspiracy theory against Barack Obama — a decade and a half after his false claims about the 44th president’s birthplace electrified his coalition and political career. He enlisted the top US intelligence official, Tulsi Gabbard, who misleadingly claimed in a theatrical White House appearance that Obama’s handling of Russian election meddling in 2016 amounted to a coup to destroy Trump’s first presidency, a day after her boss accused his predecessor of treason.

There is no evidence that Trump did anything wrong or illegal in his interactions with Epstein. But days of stalling by the White House and new disclosures drove speculation to a fever pitch over their relationship in the 1990s and early 2000s, long before the wealthy financier was charged with sex trafficking and abuse and died in prison in 2019.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s Epstein nightmare worsens amid new revelations and a GOP revolt | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #Epstein #EpsteinFiles #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Photos #Politics #Resistance #Science #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpEpsteinHistory #UnitedStates

Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

 Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

4 min read, Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2025, 02:58

Trump pivots Epstein question into attack on Obama

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

CNN  — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.

The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.

“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.

But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.

Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.

QUESTION from reporter: Tulsi Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation, what specific figures in the Obama administration?

TRUMP: Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with them and (then-FBI Director James) Comey was there and (then-Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper. The whole group was there — (then-CIA Director John) Brennan. They were all there, the — in a room. Right here, this was the room.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #Conspiracy #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Lies #Politics #Resistance #Science #Treason #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAttacksObama #TryingDistraction #UnitedStates

Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

 Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

4 min read, Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2025, 02:58

Trump pivots Epstein question into attack on Obama

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

CNN  — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.

The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.

“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.

But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.

Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.

QUESTION from reporter: Tulsi Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation, what specific figures in the Obama administration?

TRUMP: Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with them and (then-FBI Director James) Comey was there and (then-Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper. The whole group was there — (then-CIA Director John) Brennan. They were all there, the — in a room. Right here, this was the room.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #Conspiracy #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Lies #Politics #Resistance #Science #Treason #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAttacksObama #TryingDistraction #UnitedStates

Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

 Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

4 min read, Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2025, 02:58

Trump pivots Epstein question into attack on Obama

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

CNN  — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.

The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.

“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.

But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.

Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.

QUESTION from reporter: Tulsi Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation, what specific figures in the Obama administration?

TRUMP: Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with them and (then-FBI Director James) Comey was there and (then-Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper. The whole group was there — (then-CIA Director John) Brennan. They were all there, the — in a room. Right here, this was the room.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #Conspiracy #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Lies #Politics #Resistance #Science #Treason #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAttacksObama #TryingDistraction #UnitedStates

Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

 Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

4 min read, Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2025, 02:58

Trump pivots Epstein question into attack on Obama

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

CNN  — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.

The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.

“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.

But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.

Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.

QUESTION from reporter: Tulsi Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation, what specific figures in the Obama administration?

TRUMP: Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with them and (then-FBI Director James) Comey was there and (then-Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper. The whole group was there — (then-CIA Director John) Brennan. They were all there, the — in a room. Right here, this was the room.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #Conspiracy #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Lies #Politics #Resistance #Science #Treason #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAttacksObama #TryingDistraction #UnitedStates

Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

 Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf, CNN

4 min read, Updated 10:04 AM EDT, Wed July 23, 2025, 02:58

Trump pivots Epstein question into attack on Obama

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

CNN  — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday released a slew of documents that she said implicate members of the Obama administration for “treasonous” behavior during the 2016 election.

The claims confuse the allegation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the idea that Russia actively tried to change results by hacking into voting systems. CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Katie Bo Lillis went through them and talked to people who worked on a bipartisan Senate review of the 2016 election.

“Wildly misleading” is how the information was described by one source in their report.

But that didn’t stop President Donald Trump from accusing former President Barack Obama of treason, a crime punishable by death in the US, when he was asked about it in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Trump made the accusation while appearing at an event to discuss trade with Philippines leader Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Trump’s very long, meandering answer is a window into how his mind works. All roads lead back to immigration and his 2020 election loss.

Obama’s office issued a rare statement in response:

“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one,” said spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. “These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction. Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.”

Here’s a look at what Trump said, along with some context from CNN reporting.

QUESTION from reporter: Tulsi Gabbard has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice. From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation, what specific figures in the Obama administration?

TRUMP: Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with them and (then-FBI Director James) Comey was there and (then-Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper. The whole group was there — (then-CIA Director John) Brennan. They were all there, the — in a room. Right here, this was the room.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump accuses Obama of treason, annotated | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #CNNWhatMatters #Conspiracy #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Lies #Politics #Resistance #Science #Treason #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpAttacksObama #TryingDistraction #UnitedStates

Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling | CNN Politics

Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling

President Donald Trump was examined for swelling in his legs and has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, the White House announced Thursday.

Trump, 79, underwent a “comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies” with the White House Medical Unit, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, reading a note from the president’s physician, Capt. Sean Barbabella.

Barbabella’s letter, which was later released by the White House, states that “bilateral lower extremity venous Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency, a benign and common condition, particularly in individuals over the age of 70.”

The examination came after Trump had “noted mild swelling in his lower legs” over recent weeks, Leavitt said.

“Importantly, there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or arterial disease” and Trump’s lab testing was all “within normal limits,” according to the letter. Trump also underwent an echocardiogram. “No signs of heart failure, renal impairment, or systemic illness were identified,” Barbabella wrote.

Chronic venous insufficiency is a condition in which valves inside certain veins don’t work the way they should, which can allow blood to pool or collect in the veins. About 150,000 people are diagnosed with it each year, and the risk goes up with age. Symptoms can include swelling in the lower legs or ankles, aching or cramping in the legs, varicose veins, pain or skin changes. Treatment may involve medication or, in later stages, medical procedures.

“It’s basically not alarming information, and it’s not surprising,” Dr. Jeremy Faust, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, told CNN.

“This is a pretty normal part of aging, and especially for someone in the overweight to obese category, which is where the president has always been. But the bigger concern … is that symptoms like this do need to be evaluated for more serious conditions, and that is what happened.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #ChronicVenousInsufficiency #CNN #CNNPolitics #CVI #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpHealth #TrumpLegs #UnitedStates

Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling | CNN Politics

Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling

President Donald Trump was examined for swelling in his legs and has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, the White House announced Thursday.

Trump, 79, underwent a “comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies” with the White House Medical Unit, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, reading a note from the president’s physician, Capt. Sean Barbabella.

Barbabella’s letter, which was later released by the White House, states that “bilateral lower extremity venous Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency, a benign and common condition, particularly in individuals over the age of 70.”

The examination came after Trump had “noted mild swelling in his lower legs” over recent weeks, Leavitt said.

“Importantly, there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or arterial disease” and Trump’s lab testing was all “within normal limits,” according to the letter. Trump also underwent an echocardiogram. “No signs of heart failure, renal impairment, or systemic illness were identified,” Barbabella wrote.

Chronic venous insufficiency is a condition in which valves inside certain veins don’t work the way they should, which can allow blood to pool or collect in the veins. About 150,000 people are diagnosed with it each year, and the risk goes up with age. Symptoms can include swelling in the lower legs or ankles, aching or cramping in the legs, varicose veins, pain or skin changes. Treatment may involve medication or, in later stages, medical procedures.

“It’s basically not alarming information, and it’s not surprising,” Dr. Jeremy Faust, an assistant professor of emergency medicine at Harvard Medical School, told CNN.

“This is a pretty normal part of aging, and especially for someone in the overweight to obese category, which is where the president has always been. But the bigger concern … is that symptoms like this do need to be evaluated for more serious conditions, and that is what happened.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency following leg swelling | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #ChronicVenousInsufficiency #CNN #CNNPolitics #CVI #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpHealth #TrumpLegs #UnitedStates

Trump’s mass deportation is backfiring -CNN Politics

Analysis by Aaron Blake, CNN, 3 minute read, Published 7:00 AM EDT, Sun July 13, 2025

Trump’s mass deportation is backfiring

CNN  — President Donald Trump and his administration continue to bet big on the issue that, more than any other, appeared to help him win him a second term in 2024: immigration.

The administration and its allies have gleefully played up standoffs between federal immigration agents and protesters, such as the one Thursday during a raid at a legal marijuana farm in Ventura County, California.

And as congressional Republicans were passing a very unpopular Trump agenda bill last month, Vice President JD Vance argued that its historic expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and new immigration enforcement provisions were so important that “everything else” was “immaterial.”

But this appears to be an increasingly bad bet for Trump and Co.

It’s looking more and more like Trump has botched an issue that, by all rights, should have been a great one for him. And ICE’s actions appear to be a big part of that.

The most recent polling on this comes from Gallup, where the findings are worse than those of any poll in Trump’s second term.

The nearly monthlong survey conducted in June found Americans disapproved of Trump’s handling of immigration by a wide margin: 62% to 35%. And more than twice as many Americans strongly disapproved (45%) as strongly approved (21%).

It also found nearly 7 in 10 independents disapproved.

These are Trump’s worst numbers on immigration yet. But the trend has clearly been downward – especially in high-quality polling like Gallup’s.

An NPR-PBS News-Marist College poll conducted late last month, for instance, showed 59% of independents disapproved of Trump on immigration. And a Quinnipiac University poll showed 66% of independents disapproved.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s mass deportation is backfiring | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #CNN #CNNPolitics #Disapproval #DonaldTrump #Health #History #Immigration #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

When key provisions in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ take effect | CNN Politics

Some of the measures are effective immediately, while others don’t kick in for several years – notably, after the 2026 midterm elections.

By Tami Luhby and Annette Choi, CNN, 2 minute read
Published 7:00 AM EDT, Sat July 12, 2025

President Donald Trump signed his landmark tax and spending cuts bill into law on July 4, notching the first major legislative achievement of his second term.

Congressional Republicans approved the president’s sweeping agenda bill on an ambitious timeline over the blanket opposition of Democrats, as well as some consternation within the GOP over its impact to the federal deficit and certain government programs.

Among its myriad provisions, the package makes permanent the 2017 tax cuts that were set to expire at year’s end and beefs up funding for defense, border control and immigration enforcement. It also enacts a historic reshaping of the nation’s safety net, particularly imposing steep cuts to Medicaid and food stamps.

Some of the measures take effect this year – for instance, the expiration of the electric vehicles tax credit and the temporary elimination of taxes on tips and overtime work. Other provisions don’t kick in for several years, notably, after the 2026 midterm elections.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: When key provisions in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ take effect | CNN Politics

#2025 #America #BigUglyBill #CNN #CNNPolitics #DonaldTrump #EffectiveDates #Health #History #Libraries #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Hillbilly #Hypocrite 👩‍🌾

Potential VP pick Sen. J.D. Vance once liked tweets harshly critical of Trump

“#Republican #Ohio #Senator #JDVance, a leading candidate to be Donald Trump’s vice president, liked tweets in 2016 and 2017 that harshly criticized #Trump and his policies — including one speculating that #Vance could serve in former Democratic presidential candidate #HillaryClinton’s administration”

#CNNPolitics #x #twitter #HillbillyHypocrite
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/13/politics/kfile-jd-vance-harsh-twitter-likes-trump-vice-president/index.html

“Texas Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar: 'it is a really profound moment in time for American women' ”

#abortion #texas #CNNPolitics #trump #biden #womenshealth
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/21/sotu-panel-d.cnn

John Malone is destroying CNN—in service of or incidental to destroying democracy. #BoycottCNN #BoycottJohnMalone #FireChrisLicht #CNN #CNNPolitics #WarnerMedia

Trump faces another 14th Amendment candidacy challenge, this time in Minnesota | CNN Politics

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/12/politics/minnesota-trump-14th-amendment-lawsuit/index.html

#CNNPolitics #Trump14thAmendment #Minnesota #CandidacyChallenge #Lawsuit #2023 #Politics #News

Georgia prosecutors have messages showing Trump's team is behind voting system breach | CNN Politics

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/13/politics/coffee-county-georgia-voting-system-breach-trump

#CNNPolitics #GeorgiaProsecutors #TrumpTeam #VotingSystemBreach #CoffeeCountyGeorgia #MessagesShowing #Politics #News

Trump Town Hall Audience Called ‘Embarrassing’ by Their Own GOP Governor

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-cnn-town-hall-audience-embarrassing-new-hampshire-governor-1234734708/

#RollingStoneNews #TrumpTownHall #GOPGovernor #NewHampshire #AudienceEmbarrassing #CNNPolitics #Politics #News

Notice
Trump's return
A warning to the US
Dire, bleak future ahead
Frum

#davidfrum #jimacosta #donaldtrump #cnnpolitics #cinquain #poetry

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/10/donald-trump-second-term-white-house-david-frum-the-atlantic-acostanr.cnn

Iceberg
Lurking deep
Underneath the tip
Hiding secrets untold
Unrevealed

#cnnpolitics #ericadams #fbi #investigation #cinquain #poetry

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/11/10/mayor-of-new-york-city-eric-adams-fbi-devices-avlon-tsr-vpx.cnn