Home Blog

Democrats Prepare Hegseth Investigations If They Win Congress

By
Patrick Houck
-
0
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

Democratic lawmakers are considering hearings, subpoenas, and renewed impeachment proceedings involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but their ability to act would depend on winning at least one chamber in November.

Congressional Democrats are preparing an aggressive campaign of investigations into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they win control of Congress in November, according to a new report detailing plans for hearings, document demands, and possible subpoenas.

The proposed inquiries would reportedly examine the war with Iran, allegations involving civilian casualties and the laws of armed conflict, Pentagon contracts, the removal of senior military officers, internal leak investigations, and Hegseth’s handling of sensitive operational information.

Some House Democrats have already moved beyond oversight demands. In April, a group of lawmakers introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth, although the effort has little chance of advancing while Republicans control the chamber.

The discussions remain contingent plans, not scheduled proceedings. Democrats would need to capture the House, the Senate, or both in the Nov. 3 elections before they could control committee agendas and pursue the full range of investigative actions under consideration.

Hearings and subpoenas under consideration

Democrats are considering a “blitz” of public hearings and inquiries if they gain congressional power, according to Politico reporting.

Winning the House would allow Democrats to select committee chairmen, schedule hearings, demand documents, and issue subpoenas, subject to House and committee rules. Committees could call Hegseth and other Pentagon officials to testify about military operations, personnel decisions, procurement, and the department’s compliance with congressional oversight requests.

Control of the Senate would provide separate investigative authority through committees including Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators would also oversee Pentagon nominations and could use confirmation proceedings to press administration officials for information.

Executive branch officials can assert privileges, challenge congressional demands, negotiate the scope of requests, or fight them in court. Such disputes can continue for months or years, limiting the immediate effect of an investigation.

Existing impeachment articles outline Democrats’ case

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April with support from several other House Democrats.

According to the seven-page resolution, the articles accuse Hegseth of:

  • Participating in an unauthorized war against Iran and recklessly endangering U.S. service members;
  • Violating the law of armed conflict and permitting attacks that caused civilian casualties;
  • Mishandling sensitive military information;
  • Obstructing congressional oversight;
  • Abusing his authority and politicizing the military; and
  • Engaging in conduct the sponsors contend brought disrepute upon the United States and its armed forces.

The Pentagon dismissed the effort when the articles were introduced.

“This is just another Democrat trying to make headlines as the Department of War decisively and overwhelmingly achieved the Presidents’ objectives in Iran,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said.

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson added. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

Iran and Pentagon leadership take center stage

The Iran war would likely become one of the largest components of any Democratic-led investigation.

The impeachment resolution cites a Feb. 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed 168 people. A preliminary U.S. assessment reportedly concluded that American forces were “likely” responsible but did not intentionally target the school and may have struck it by mistake. Any congressional investigation would be expected to examine targeting procedures, intelligence assessments, command decisions, and the administration’s legal justification for military operations.

Democrats also want to examine allegations involving other military strikes and determine whether U.S. forces complied with the law of armed conflict. The Pentagon has disputed accusations that its operations deliberately targeted civilians.

Personnel decisions present another point of conflict. Democrats have criticized Hegseth over the removal of senior officers and what they describe as the politicization of military leadership. The administration has defended personnel changes as necessary to restore accountability, readiness, and a focus on combat effectiveness.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) recently said lawmakers had not received a briefing on a Pentagon investigation into leaks concerning U.S. weapons stockpiles. Crow, a member of both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, accused Hegseth of creating “an environment of fear.”

“Certainly, stopping leaks and protecting classified information is really important, and I would always support that,” Crow said. “The problem is the broader context that Pete Hegseth has created here.”

Pentagon officials said the investigation did not subject every senior military leader to polygraph examinations and that no one failed the tests.

Impeachment would face a much higher barrier

A Democratic House could revive the existing articles, introduce new charges, or conduct hearings before deciding whether to proceed. Impeachment requires only a majority vote in the House.

Removing Hegseth from office would be far more difficult. The Senate would have to hold a trial, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. Unless Democrats won an overwhelming Senate majority, removal would require substantial Republican support.

Only two Cabinet officials have been impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876 but acquitted by the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the Republican-controlled House in 2024, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the charges without conducting a full trial.

For that reason, hearings and subpoenas are substantially more plausible than Hegseth’s removal. Democratic control of even one chamber could subject the Pentagon to sustained public scrutiny, but impeachment would remain only the first step in a much more demanding constitutional process.

The November elections will determine whether the plans move from private discussions and minority-party demands to formal congressional investigations. Until then, Democrats can request records and introduce resolutions, but Republicans retain control over whether the House and Senate put Hegseth under the level of scrutiny his critics are promising.

READ NEXT: Iran Quietly Restarts Ballistic Missile Production Underground

Fox Host Praises Trump’s $5K Pledge As Questions Mount Over Cost And Authority

By
Patrick Houck
-
1
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Rachel Campos-Duffy called the president’s proposal “creative and rule-breaking,” but the conditional payments could cost more than $1 trillion, require congressional approval, and far exceed current tariff revenue.

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy praised President Donald Trump’s promise to send $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans retain control of Congress, calling the proposal “creative and rule-breaking.”

Speaking Thursday on “Fox & Friends,” Campos-Duffy said the pledge could help Republicans build momentum before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

“This shows just how creative and rule-breaking and out of the box President Trump is,” Campos-Duffy said. “I’m surprised no one has thought of this before.”

She added: “I mean, it’s actually a great way, as you say, to sort of get that momentum, push things forward. Especially if you are running, you know, as the incumbent in the midterm, you know you’re already going to have those headwinds. This was a brilliant idea on their part.”

The political appeal is easy to understand. The policy behind it remains largely undefined.

Trump cannot distribute the money without congressional authorization, Congress has not approved the estimated $1.2 trillion needed to fulfill the promise, and the White House has not released a detailed funding plan.

WATCH: Rachel Campos-Duffy reacts to Trump’s $5,000 dividend pledge

Trump Ties Payments to Republican Victory

Trump unveiled what he called the “Trump Dividend” Wednesday night during the Republican Party’s midterm convention in Dallas.

“Here is my promise: If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate — both of them —because of our tremendous economic success, like in history. We’ve never had anything like what’s happening. But because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

“That alone should win the midterms,” Trump added.

Trump said recipients would be required to spend the money inside the United States, but he did not explain how the government would enforce that restriction. His remarks also did not specify a delivery date, an income limit, a legislative structure, or a precise funding source.

The president compared the payment to a profitable company distributing money to its shareholders.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us,” Trump told the crowd. “Now all we have to do is win.”

The White House had not released legislation or a formal cost estimate as of Thursday.

Cost Could Reach $1.2 Trillion

The United States has approximately 240 million adult citizens. Paying each of them $5,000 would cost roughly $1.2 trillion before administrative expenses.

That would represent a major new federal expenditure while the government is already operating at a substantial deficit. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the federal deficit totaled nearly $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.

The Constitution gives Congress — not the president acting alone — control over federal appropriations. Lawmakers would therefore have to authorize the payments and identify a source of funding.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) endorsed Trump’s proposal and said he would prepare legislation authorizing the dividend if Republicans win in November.

Other Republicans have been more cautious.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Politico that he wanted to know how the administration intended to finance what he calculated would be a payment “well over $1 trillion.”

The final cost could be lower if Congress imposed income limits or narrowed eligibility. Such restrictions would depart from Trump’s initial promise of payments to “every adult citizen.”

Vance Suggests Wealthy Americans May Be Excluded

Vice President JD Vance suggested after Trump’s speech that wealthy Americans might not qualify.

Vance also argued that tariff revenue could help finance the plan.

“Tariffs have generated a lot of revenues,” Vance told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “The president is saying, if you keep us in power, then you will share in some of the benefit of this incredible wealth that we are creating.”

Tariffs have generated additional federal revenue, but not nearly enough to finance universal $5,000 payments.

Treasury Department figures cited by Time magazine show that customs duties generated approximately $154.5 billion during the first 10 months of fiscal 2026. A $1.2 trillion dividend would cost nearly eight times that amount.

Some tariff revenue also could be reduced by refunds connected to duties the Supreme Court determined were unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Unless lawmakers approved substantial spending cuts or another source of revenue, the payments would increase federal borrowing.

Economists have also warned that injecting more than $1 trillion into the economy could increase inflationary pressure. The extent of that effect would depend on the payments’ timing, eligibility requirements, and financing.

Critics Use ‘Bribery’ Label

Some of Trump’s opponents characterized the promise as a “bribe” because he explicitly conditioned the payments on Republicans winning both chambers of Congress.

Baier raised that criticism during his interview with Vance.

“I can hear the critics’ heads exploding,” Baier said. “They’re saying out loud, I guarantee you, ‘the president is bribing voters to vote for Republicans to take over the House, and then he’s bankrupting the country because the deficit and debt is huge and inflation would come back if this comes into play.’ So how do you answer those criticisms?”

Candidates routinely campaign on promises involving tax reductions, new benefits, or government payments that require them and their allies to win office. Trump did not offer individual voters money in exchange for demonstrating how they cast their ballots.

Legal experts told the Associated Press that the proposal would not ordinarily constitute criminal voter bribery, describing it as a campaign promise conditioned on an electoral outcome rather than a payment conditioned on how an individual votes.

Previous Dividend Proposals Did Not Become Law

Trump has floated several direct-payment proposals during his second term.

He previously endorsed a $2,000 tariff dividend, proposed returning part of the savings attributed to the Department of Government Efficiency, and supported deposits into health savings accounts. Congress did not enact those broader payments.

Trump also announced a $1,776 payment for military personnel. That “Warrior Dividend” used money Congress had already appropriated for a housing supplement, making it materially different from the newly proposed $5,000 payments.

Trump’s first administration distributed two rounds of stimulus checks during the COVID-19 pandemic, but those payments also required legislation passed by Congress.

Campos-Duffy’s praise captured the proposal’s immediate political value: It gives voters a clear and easily understood financial incentive to support continued Republican control.

Whether it becomes policy depends on considerably more complicated questions. Congress would have to approve it, lawmakers would need to find more than $1 trillion or restrict eligibility, and the government would have to determine whether the payment could be administered without significantly increasing federal deficits or inflation.

Until the White House submits legislation and identifies a credible funding source, the “Trump Dividend” remains a campaign promise — not a guarantee.

READ NEXT: Today’s AI Is Low Risk. What Comes Next Could Be Different.

Missouri Election Chief Faces Contempt Hearing As Courts Issue Conflicting Map Orders

By
Patrick Houck
-
0
AI-generated image.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins must answer allegations that he violated Missouri’s highest court, even as a federal judge ordered him to use the congressional map the state court barred.

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is scheduled to appear before the state Supreme Court on Thursday and explain why he should not be held in contempt for directing election officials to use a Republican-backed congressional map the court had ordered him not to implement.

A federal judge declined to halt the contempt proceeding Wednesday night, allowing the extraordinary confrontation between Missouri’s highest court and its Republican election chief to move forward.

The contempt question arises from Hoskins’ Sept. 8 email instructing local election authorities to use the state’s 2025 congressional districts. He sent that directive after Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order barring Missouri from using any map other than the 2025 version.

The difficulty for Hoskins is that the Missouri Supreme Court had already issued a permanent injunction requiring him to use the older districts drawn after the 2020 census.

Hoskins is therefore caught between two conflicting judicial orders. The state Supreme Court says he cannot use the 2025 map, while the federal court says he cannot use any other map.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Central time.

Hoskins ordered to explain his email

The Missouri Supreme Court ordered Hoskins to appear in person after People Not Politicians, the organization challenging the new map, accused him of openly violating the court’s injunction.

Hoskins attached Clark’s federal order to his email to local officials and wrote that it “takes precedence over the Missouri Supreme Court’s order.”

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell directed Hoskins to explain why that email was not an affirmative violation of the state court’s order. The court also asked whether Hoskins would agree to take no further action concerning the congressional map until a higher court provides guidance.

Attorneys representing Hoskins asked Clark to stop the state contempt proceeding. Clark refused, according to the Associated Press, leaving Hoskins required to appear before the Missouri Supreme Court while the federal litigation continues.

Referendum suspended the new map

Republican lawmakers approved the new congressional districts during a 2025 special legislative session called by Gov. Mike Kehoe. President Donald Trump had encouraged Republican-led states to redraw districts before the midterm elections in an effort to protect the party’s narrow House majority.

The revised Missouri map was designed to improve Republican prospects in seven of the state’s eight congressional districts. Its most consequential change reshaped the Kansas City-based 5th District represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.

Opponents organized a referendum campaign and submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025, according to Axios. Their objective was to suspend the new districts and place the issue before voters.

Hoskins did not reject the referendum until the day of Missouri’s August primary. He argued that state law did not permit voters to use the referendum process to challenge congressional redistricting.

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. It ruled Sept. 3 that the referendum was legal, sufficient, and timely.

Because opponents submitted the petition before the redistricting measure took effect, the court concluded that the new map never became law. It ordered Hoskins to place the referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition A and directed the state to conduct the general election under the 2022 districts.

The court permanently barred Hoskins and officials acting with him from implementing the new map unless voters approve it.

Federal court reaches the opposite conclusion

Missouri officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied that emergency request Sept. 8 without an explanation.

The denial did not establish a nationwide precedent or decide every legal question in the dispute. It simply left the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling in place while the litigation continued.

Minutes later, Clark issued a temporary restraining order in a separate federal lawsuit filed by Republican Rep. Bob Onder, Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin, and two voters. Clark concluded that switching maps after candidates and voters had participated in an August primary under the 2025 lines could cause constitutional injuries and severe electoral disruption.

“Many Missouri voters would have to cast their general election votes for candidates whom they had no role in nominating,” Clark wrote.

Clark also argued that candidates had spent money and organized campaigns within districts that would suddenly cease to exist for the general election. His order required Hoskins to continue using the 2025 map, directly colliding with the Missouri Supreme Court’s command.

People Not Politicians appealed. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Wednesday to suspend Clark’s order, and the organization then returned to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking emergency relief.

Election deadlines are approaching

Missouri must begin mailing ballots to military and overseas voters on Sept. 14, leaving election officials little time to resolve district assignments, candidate placement, and ballot preparation.

County clerks have described the practical problem in plain terms.

“We’ve got the Supreme Court of Missouri saying that we have to use [the 2022 map]; otherwise we’ll be in violation of their order,” Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon told St. Louis Public Radio. “And then we have the federal court saying that we can’t use them.”

Proposition A will remain on the November ballot regardless of which map governs this year’s congressional election. A “yes” vote would approve the 2025 districts for future elections, while a “no” vote would reject them.

The immediate question is narrower but more urgent: whether Hoskins violated the Missouri Supreme Court’s injunction by affirmatively directing officials to use the prohibited map, or whether the subsequent federal order gave him no lawful alternative. Thursday’s contempt hearing may clarify Hoskins’ obligations, but the final answer about Missouri’s congressional districts could still come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

READ NEXT: The Murdoch Empire Wants To Expand. Washington Has Questions.

Federal Court Twist Revives GOP’s Crucial Midterm Map

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0

Missouri’s Republican-backed congressional map is suddenly back in play after a federal judge intervened in the state’s rapidly escalating redistricting battle — less than an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to deal the GOP plan a potentially fatal blow.

Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a 14-day temporary restraining order Tuesday requiring Missouri officials to continue using the congressional districts enacted through House Bill 1 in 2025. The decision temporarily blocks the state from returning to its previous map while the federal court considers whether longer-lasting relief is warranted.

The stunning order arrived shortly after Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected Missouri’s emergency request to pause a Missouri Supreme Court ruling against the new districts.

The result is an extraordinary collision between state and federal courts with control of a closely divided U.S. House potentially hanging in the balance.

Federal Judge Revives New Districts

The federal lawsuit was filed by Republican Rep. Bob Onder, state Sen. Rick Brattin and two Missouri voters after the state Supreme Court ordered election officials to use the congressional map adopted in 2022.

Missouri conducted its August primaries under the newer House Bill 1 districts. Clark concluded that switching maps before the November general election could nullify the practical effect of primary votes by moving hundreds of thousands of voters into districts where they had no role in selecting the nominees.

“Using a different map for the general election would wreak havoc” on Missouri’s congressional races, Clark wrote in his 13-page memorandum and order.

Clark found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause. He reasoned that Missouri’s primary is an integral part of the election process and that changing district boundaries between the primary and general election could leave some voters casting ballots for nominees they did not help select.

The judge did not endorse every argument advanced by the Republican plaintiffs. In fact, he rejected their claim that allowing voters to challenge a congressional map through a referendum inherently violates the Constitution’s Elections Clause.

Instead, his order focused on the constitutional and practical consequences of changing the districts after the primary had already taken place.

GOP Map Targets Key Democratic Seat

Missouri’s Republican-controlled legislature approved the mid-decade redistricting plan during a 2025 special session. President Donald Trump had encouraged Republican-led states to revisit their congressional boundaries ahead of the midterms.

The new map divides parts of Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s Kansas City-based 5th Congressional District among more Republican-leaning areas. If ultimately permitted to take effect, the plan could give Republicans an opportunity to expand their advantage in Missouri’s congressional delegation from six seats to seven.

Republicans argued that retaining the same districts for both stages of the election would protect the approximately 1.2 million Missourians who participated in the August primaries.

Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said the state would comply with Clark’s federal order, maintaining that changing maps between the primary and general election would be unworkable and unfair to voters.

Gov. Mike Kehoe similarly praised the ruling for providing what he called “much-needed clarity” to candidates and election officials.

State Court Raises Contempt Threat

The federal ruling did not end the fight. It immediately placed Secretary of State Denny Hoskins between two conflicting court orders.

Missouri’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Sept. 3 that a citizen-led referendum petition had suspended House Bill 1. The state justices concluded that the map could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in November and ordered Hoskins to return to the 2022 districts.

After Clark issued his federal restraining order, Hoskins instructed local election officials to use the House Bill 1 map when preparing November ballots.

Richard von Glahn, the plaintiff in the state case and executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, responded with an emergency contempt motion. He argued that Hoskins’ instructions directly violated the state Supreme Court’s injunction.

The Missouri Supreme Court then ordered Hoskins to explain why he should not be held in contempt. The court also directed him to address whether he would refrain from taking further action until a higher court resolved the conflicting directives.

Hoskins was ordered to submit a written response by noon Wednesday and appear personally for oral arguments at 10 a.m. Thursday, Sept. 10.

Appeals Could Bring Another Twist

Opponents of the House Bill 1 map have already appealed Clark’s order to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and requested an immediate pause.

They contend that the federal court improperly interfered with the Missouri Supreme Court’s interpretation of state law. They have also argued that a constitutional challenge involving congressional apportionment should be considered by a three-judge federal panel rather than a single district judge.

For now, Clark’s temporary order keeps the Republican-backed map alive. But with a federal appeal underway, a contempt proceeding looming and both maps covered by conflicting injunctions, Missouri’s congressional boundaries remain far from settled.

White House Pushes Back Over Trump’s $45,000 Gift To Close Aide

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
Image via Pixabay free images

The White House is defending President Donald Trump’s eye-popping $45,000 holiday gift to close aide Natalie Harp, dismissing questions about whether the payment crossed a federal ethics line.

Harp, a special assistant and executive assistant to the president, disclosed the cash on a recently released financial form. Trump gave identical $45,000 gifts to communications adviser Margo Martin and deputy director of Oval Office operations Chamberlain Harris, according to CBS News.

All three women earn taxpayer-funded salaries of $150,000 a year, making each gift equivalent to nearly one-third of their annual government pay.

But the White House insists the money was personal—not payment for work performed inside the administration.

“The President has a longstanding practice of giving Christmas gifts to people in his orbit, including at times employees and aides, both in government and in his time in the private sector,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said.

“The gifts at issue here have nothing to do with any of these individuals’ official government duties, and therefore are entirely permissible under relevant legal and ethical standards.”

More Than $150,000 Handed Out

The newly released disclosures show Trump gave at least $155,000 to four members of his White House inner circle during the 2025 holiday season.

In addition to the three $45,000 payments, Trump reportedly gave $20,000 to Walt Nauta, his longtime aide and current director of Oval Office operations. Nauta earns $175,000 annually, according to ABC News.

The disclosures described the payments as “cash gift[s] for the holidays.” They did not provide specific dates, although ABC reported that three of the forms listed Trump’s Palm Beach address—supporting the administration’s claim that the money came from Trump personally rather than government funds.

The White House has not indicated whether Trump consulted administration ethics officials before distributing the money.

Ethics Expert Raises Legal Questions

Richard Painter, who served as the White House’s chief ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, told The Washington Post that the size and circumstances of the payments raised concerns under a federal law restricting outside compensation for government employees.

“He’s clearly trying to make it easier for them financially to work in government service at the White House,” Painter said, according to Mediaite. “You can’t do that.”

“It’s not like tipping the doorman on Fifth Avenue,” Painter added. “These are U.S. government employees. If you want a job where you get tips, you shouldn’t be working for the U.S. government.”

The statute at the center of the debate, 18 U.S.C. § 209, prohibits federal employees from receiving outside money as compensation for their government service.

That final distinction could be crucial. The law does not categorically prohibit every personal gift from a supervisor; it focuses on payments connected to an employee’s official work. The White House maintains Trump’s gifts were motivated entirely by the holidays and his personal relationships with the aides.

Guidance from the Office of Government Ethics similarly says a supervisor’s gift could raise concerns if it rewards official duties, while acknowledging that some gifts driven by personal motives may not violate the statute.

No government ethics agency or court has determined that Trump’s payments broke the law.

Harp’s Place In Trump’s Inner Circle

Harp, 35, has become one of Trump’s most visible and loyal White House aides. She earned the nickname “human printer” during the 2024 campaign because she regularly carried a portable printer to provide Trump with physical copies of news stories, social media posts and other material.

She has remained frequently at the president’s side since joining the second Trump administration in January 2025.

That closeness has made her a target for Democratic attacks—and now placed Trump’s unusually generous Christmas present under Washington’s ethics microscope.

Why Some Republicans Are Skipping Trump’s Midterm Convention

By
admin
-
2
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump is billing the Republican National Committee’s first midterm convention as a two-day show of party unity. Yet some of the GOP candidates with the most at stake in November have decided their time is better spent somewhere other than Dallas.

The unusual gathering runs Wednesday and Thursday at the American Airlines Center, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance serving as its biggest draws. More than 100 Republican candidates and elected officials are expected to participate, and party leaders say the event will promote the administration’s record while energizing voters ahead of the midterms.

But several Republicans fighting for political survival have made a different calculation: They would rather stay close to the voters who will decide their races.

Vulnerable Republicans Stay On The Campaign Trail

CBS News contacted 60 Republican candidates in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial contests. Only four confirmed that they planned to attend, while five said they would not.

The remaining 51 did not respond, meaning the survey is not a definitive count of the convention’s no-shows. Still, the confirmed absences include several Republicans in closely watched races.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, whose Pennsylvania district Trump carried by fewer than 300 votes in 2024, offered one of the bluntest explanations: “Our bosses are back home.”

He told CBS News that voters are struggling with household budgets, health care and business costs—and that elected officials should be listening to them instead of standing inside a convention hall.

Colorado Rep. Gabe Evans similarly said his focus would remain on constituents in his highly competitive district north of Denver.

Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar said she needed to campaign in Miami, telling the network, “No one votes for me in Washington or in Dallas.”

Other Republicans sitting out the event reportedly include Reps. Zach Nunn of Iowa and Tom Barrett of Michigan, both of whom are running in districts rated as toss-ups. Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said he planned to spend the time speaking with constituents about concerns that include affordability.

Even Vance has acknowledged that attending may not be the best move for every candidate. He told reporters that Republicans in close races should do whatever helps them make their case to voters, whether that means appearing in Dallas, campaigning at home or raising money.

A $25,000 Price Tag Sparked Confusion

Time away from the campaign trail is only part of the story.

The National Republican Congressional Committee initially asked House members to contribute at least $25,000 for a convention package. According to Axios, it included two tickets, a hotel room and admission to a welcome reception. Larger contributions came with additional benefits, including access to events with party leaders.

The party later exempted members in the NRCC’s “Patriot” program for vulnerable incumbents, but Axios reported that some lawmakers remained confused about who was required to pay.

Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett called the price “pretty steep,” while Texas Rep. Jake Ellzey said some members believed the money would be more useful in their own campaigns.

NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson pushed back on the idea that lawmakers were being shut out, telling CBS News that he distributed 2,000 free tickets to members and staff. Hudson described the dispute as confusion between ordinary admission and optional fundraising packages.

For donors, the asking price climbed much higher. CBS News reported that an RNC email offered packages beginning at $15,000, with premium options reaching $150,000. Those sums have fueled complaints from some party figures who question the value of a costly late-summer spectacle so close to Election Day.

Trump’s Spotlight Creates A Strategic Divide

The convention’s heavy focus on Trump is another factor for candidates trying to hold politically divided districts.

The president has urged supporters to behave as though he were on the ballot, and the RNC says the Dallas gathering is designed to translate his ability to mobilize loyal voters into turnout for Republican candidates.

That strategy has obvious appeal in reliably Republican territory. Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde told CBS News the convention would give the party an opportunity to highlight its record and draw a contrast with Democrats.

Candidates in swing districts face a more complicated choice. Appearing beside Trump could excite core Republican voters, but it could also make it harder for an incumbent to keep the focus on local concerns or appeal to independents.

That helps explain why the event’s speaker list includes competitive-seat Republicans such as Reps. Mike Lawler of New York, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Monica De La Cruz of Texas and Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania—even as other vulnerable members stay home.

There is also tension over the convention’s apparent emphasis on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is locked in a competitive Senate race against Democrat James Talarico.

Trump said Paxton would be a central focus of the event, while CBS News reported that some major Texas donors remain aligned with Sen. John Cornyn, whom Paxton defeated in a bitter Republican primary.

A Test Of Competing Midterm Strategies

The Dallas gathering is not a traditional nominating convention. No presidential candidate will be formally selected, and the party is not meeting to adopt a new national platform.

Instead, it is a made-for-television rally, fundraising event and turnout operation built around Trump and the Republican record.

RNC spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said its purpose is to rally voters around the president, his agenda and GOP candidates. Convention host committee chairman Ray Washburne has argued that attendees will gain valuable access to donors, administration officials and other party leaders.

For candidates skipping Dallas, however, the political logic is more immediate: With Election Day approaching, a day spent at a town hall, local business or neighborhood event may be more valuable than a night beneath the convention balloons.

Trump Posthumously Honors 9/11’s ‘Man In The Red Bandana’

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
1
White House image via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Tuesday to Welles Crowther, the 24-year-old volunteer firefighter whose final acts of courage inside the World Trade Center saved as many as 18 people.

Trump presented the nation’s highest civilian honor during the Tunnel to Towers Foundation’s “Steel Across America” event near the White House, part of a nationwide commemoration marking 25 years since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

“Today we also remember another hero of 9/11,” Trump said before recounting how Crowther repeatedly entered the smoke and wreckage of the South Tower to guide strangers toward safety.

Crowther became known simply as the “Man in the Red Bandana,” but the survivors he helped did not initially know his name. They remembered only the calm young man who appeared amid the chaos with a red bandana covering his nose and mouth.

A Rescuer Appears In The Smoke

Crowther was working as an equities trader for Sandler O’Neill & Partners on the 104th floor of the South Tower when the attacks began.

A graduate of Boston College and a volunteer firefighter since the age of 16, he drew upon his emergency training as smoke, fire and confusion engulfed the building.

According to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum, Crowther reached the devastated 78th-floor sky lobby and discovered injured survivors near the only viable stairwell. He carried one badly wounded woman on his back, led a group downstairs and then climbed back toward the danger to help others.

“He just did things that people said were not even imaginable,” Trump said Tuesday. “He willingly made all of these trips up and down, up and down, over and over again, saving life after life.”

Crowther reportedly helped extinguish fires, administered first aid and issued clear instructions to survivors who were frightened, injured and struggling to see through the smoke.

He could have continued down the stairs and escaped. Instead, he turned around.

Again and again, Crowther went back for people who could not save themselves.

Investigators later found his remains in the wreckage of the South Tower alongside firefighters and other emergency workers. He was believed to have still been participating in rescue efforts when the building collapsed.

The Clue That Revealed His Identity

For months, Crowther’s family did not know what he had done after leaving a final voicemail telling his mother he was safe.

The answer emerged in 2002, when survivors publicly described the mysterious rescuer who had directed them through the burning tower. They could not provide his name, but they all remembered the red bandana around his face.

After reading their accounts, Crowther’s mother contacted the survivors and showed them photographs of her son. They recognized him as the man who had saved them.

“His family learned through witness accounts that Welles’ compassion, leadership and unwavering commitment to others were key to his courage in his final moments,” the Welles Remy Crowther Charitable Trust recounts.

The red bandana had been part of Crowther’s life since childhood. His firefighter father had given it to him when he was a boy, and Crowther continued carrying one as an adult.

Trump recalled that Crowther once made a striking prediction about the simple piece of red cloth: “With this red bandana, I’m going to change the world.”

“Little did he know, on September 11th Welles saved many, many people before losing his own life,” Trump said.

A Hero’s Light Still Shines

Trump first announced the award during a May appearance in Crowther’s home county in New York after Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) advocated for the recognition.

“It’s such a beautiful thing that even 25 years later, Welles’ light still shines brightly,” Crowther’s mother, Alison, said at the time, according to Fox News.

One of Crowther’s bandanas now sits inside the 9/11 Memorial & Museum, where it serves as a reminder that even in one of America’s darkest hours, extraordinary courage could be found in an ordinary object—and in the young man wearing it.

His legacy also lives on through the charitable trust established in his name, educational programs teaching young people about character and service, and Boston College traditions honoring its fallen alumnus.

The “Steel Across America” tour has carried a massive beam recovered from the World Trade Center through communities across the country. Tunnel to Towers said the journey was created to preserve the memory of the 2,977 people killed on Sept. 11 and the bravery demonstrated that day.

“This tour is about ensuring that every generation can remember, and truly understand, what happened 25 years ago,” Tunnel to Towers Chairman and CEO Frank Siller said when the national tour was launched.

Standing near that battered piece of steel Tuesday, Trump formally placed Crowther among the nation’s most honored civilians.

“Today, in honor of his incredible bravery and all of the other countless unknown acts of heroism that day, it is my privilege to award” Crowther the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Trump said.

Nearly 25 years after Crowther made his final trip up the stairs, the identity of the Man in the Red Bandana is no longer a mystery.

His name—and what he chose to do when others needed him most—will not be forgotten.

House Republican Scrubs Trump From Campaign Homepage As GOP Showdown Heats Up

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) has reportedly scrubbed prominent references to President Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda from her campaign homepage as she fights for political survival in a rare Republican-versus-Republican election.

The makeover comes after Trump-centered messaging helped define Kim’s campaign during the primary — and as she now competes for Democrats, independents and moderate voters against fellow GOP Rep. Ken Calvert.

Politico’s California Playbook first reported the changes Tuesday, prompting additional coverage from Mediaite.

Trump Disappears From The Homepage

During the June primary, Kim’s campaign homepage reportedly presented her as a “Proven Fighter who will Stand with President Trump to deliver a bold America First Agenda.”

Another prominent message promised “America First Leadership to Defend the American Dream,” according to an archived copy of the website.

Neither message currently appears on the homepage.

Instead, Kim’s revamped campaign website now declares that she is “taking on Career Politicians to Restore the American Dream.” A second message simply describes her as “Fighting for the American Dream.”

The apparent shift is not limited to the website.

Campaign signs Kim promoted before the primary identified her as a “Trump Republican.” Signs highlighted by her campaign after the primary instead feature a pocketbook-focused message: “Cut Taxes & Lower Costs!”

Campaign Rejects Distancing Claim

Kim’s campaign insists the makeover is not an attempt to put space between the congresswoman and Trump.

Spokesman Chris Pack called that interpretation “completely absurd,” pointing Politico toward recent social media posts in which Kim mentioned the president, including a birthday message.

Trump has not vanished from the campaign website altogether. Kim’s longer biography continues to bill her as a “Proven America First Fighter” and says she fights to ensure Trump has allies in Congress.

“Our campaign has consistently framed this race as a choice between an effective leader like Young Kim, who has delivered results in less than three terms in Congress, and Ken Calvert, whose career has been plagued by corruption controversies and FBI investigations,” Pack told Politico.

The spokesman added that the campaign has Trump-themed signs ready to distribute once local rules allow them to be displayed.

Two Republicans, One House Seat

Kim and Calvert landed in the same race after California voters approved Proposition 50 and redrew the state’s congressional map. Calvert currently represents the 41st District, while Kim represents the 40th.

Both advanced from California’s all-party primary, setting up an unusual general election in which voters will choose between two sitting Republican members of Congress.

Calvert finished first in the June primary with 35 percent of the vote. Kim placed second with 21 percent.

That result means the November winner may need support from voters who backed one of the six eliminated candidates — including Democrats — giving both Republicans a reason to adjust their messages beyond the GOP base.

The fight has already turned intensely personal. Each campaign has accused the other candidate of being insufficiently conservative or insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Calvert’s campaign has branded Kim a “RINO” and resurfaced a past remark in which she reportedly said she wanted to “whip” Trump’s “butt.” Kim’s campaign, meanwhile, attacked Calvert over decades-old reports involving a prostitute and accused him of “sabotaging Trump.”

Now, as the two incumbents compete for the same seat, Kim’s disappearing homepage references are fueling fresh questions about which version of her campaign she believes can win in November.

Lindsay Clancy’s Lawyer Seeks Trump Pardon

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
3

The attorney representing Massachusetts mother Lindsay Clancy is appealing directly to President Donald Trump after a jury failed to decide whether she was criminally responsible for the deaths of her three young children.

There is just one major obstacle: Trump does not have the constitutional authority to pardon Clancy on state murder charges.

Kevin Reddington made the extraordinary request Tuesday during an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” days after Clancy’s closely watched trial ended with a deadlocked jury.

“Mr. President, I would hope that you would consider this young lady and the person she is, what she’s been through, and consider a pardon,” Reddington said.

Trump Signals Clancy Will Face ‘A Price’

Trump has not publicly responded directly to Reddington’s pardon request, and no response from the White House or another top administration official had been reported as of Tuesday afternoon.

The president did, however, weigh in on the case after the mistrial—and his comments gave no indication that he was considering clemency.

Trump described the deaths as a “horrible tragedy” and said he expected Clancy to face consequences.

“I assume there’s going to be another trial,” Trump told reporters Friday. “There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something.”

Clancy faces three counts of murder in connection with the Jan. 24, 2023, deaths of her children at the family’s Duxbury home. Her daughter Cora was 5, her son Dawson was 3 and her youngest son, Callan, was 8 months old.

Clancy has not denied killing the children. She pleaded not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility, with her attorneys arguing that she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and could not understand the wrongfulness of her actions.

Prosecutors rejected that defense and portrayed the killings as calculated and premeditated.

Pardon Request Faces Constitutional Roadblock

Although Reddington directed his appeal to Trump, the Constitution limits a president’s pardon authority to federal offenses. Clancy was charged in a Massachusetts court under state law, placing the case beyond the reach of a presidential pardon.

Any pardon involving Massachusetts charges would have to come through the state’s clemency system. Democratic Gov. Maura Healey holds the state pardon power with the consent of the Governor’s Council, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Neither Healey nor the Governor’s Council had been publicly reported as considering clemency for Clancy.

Defense Seeks Deal After 11-1 Split

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Sept. 4 after jurors deliberated for more than 38 hours without reaching a unanimous decision. Court notes indicated that the jury was divided 11-1, although the court did not formally disclose how the majority intended to vote.

Reddington has said the 11 jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible and accused the lone holdout of refusing to apply the court’s reasonable-doubt instructions.

Before the mistrial was finalized, Clancy’s attorneys unsuccessfully asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to intervene and require further questioning of the dissenting juror. The emergency petition was denied.

Reddington now hopes to avoid putting Clancy—and the children’s family—through another grueling trial.

He said Tuesday that he wants Plymouth County District Attorney Tim Cruz to reconsider the case after hearing weeks of testimony from medical experts, relatives and other witnesses.

Cruz has not announced whether prosecutors will pursue another trial. After the mistrial, he emphasized that his office remains focused on securing justice for Cora, Dawson and Callan.

Clancy is scheduled to return to court for a status conference on Sept. 29. A new trial could be held as soon as the fall, though prosecutors could also negotiate an agreement with the defense.

Trump Crosses ‘Mexico’ Off The Map — Floats ‘New America’ Rename

By
Madeleine Jackson
-
5
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54325633746/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=159707159

President Donald Trump has found a new target for his growing campaign to rebrand America’s map: New Mexico.

Trump ignited a political firestorm Sunday after sharing a map on Truth Social that showed a large “X” over “Mexico” in the state’s name and replaced it with “America.”

The result: “New America.”

The official White House account quickly reposted the image on X, giving the provocative proposal an even bigger platform.

Hours later, Trump suggested the idea may have staying power.

“Many people suggested changing the name of New Mexico,” the president wrote in a follow-up post, calling the proposed name “so much more prestigious and beautiful.”

“Wow, I Love It!!!” Trump added.

A Hoax Becomes A Presidential Talking Point

The idea did not originate with the White House.

According to Snopes, a satirical social media account falsely claimed on Sept. 1 that Trump had signed an executive order changing the state’s name. The fabricated announcement quickly spread across multiple platforms.

No such executive order had been issued.

Trump nevertheless picked up the idea days later, first circulating the altered map and then openly praising the potential name change. The president did not say whether he plans to pursue any formal action.

The distinction could prove significant. A previous analysis prepared for the New Mexico Legislature concluded that the state itself “probably has the authority to change its own name.” A proposed state constitutional amendment in 2001 would have sent a name change to New Mexico voters.

Democrats Dig In

New Mexico’s Democratic congressional delegation wasted little time pushing back.

“Three things I will always call by their actual names,” Sen. Martin Heinrich wrote on X, listing the Gulf of Mexico, Lake Ontario and New Mexico.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury delivered a blunter response: “Oh hell no!”

“Our state’s name carries generations of history, culture, and family — and it belongs to us,” Stansbury wrote.

Rep. Gabe Vasquez, who faces Republican Greg Cunningham in his reelection campaign, accused Trump of attempting to “erase” the state’s history and culture.

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu also seized on the controversy, arguing that the White House should focus on fuel prices and the ongoing Iran war.

But Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee appeared entertained by the proposal, calling “New America” “kind of catchy.”

A Name Older Than The United States

Any attempt to remove “Mexico” from the state’s name would immediately collide with centuries of history.

Spanish explorers used “Nuevo México” in documents dating to the late 1500s, according to a historical review by the New Mexico Legislature. The National Archives notes that Spain formally established the colony of New Mexico in 1598 — nearly two centuries before the United States declared independence.

New Mexico later came under Mexican rule before the United States took control in the 1840s. President William Howard Taft admitted it to the Union under its current name in 1912.

Trump’s Growing Map Makeover

The latest proposal follows Trump’s moves to replace the Gulf of Mexico with the “Gulf of America” and rename Lake Ontario “Lake America.”

The Lake Ontario order drew fierce opposition from Canadian officials, tribal leaders and congressional Democrats. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that its traditional name would remain in use for Canadians and “the rest of the world.”

Even Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., whose district includes much of the lake’s American shoreline, suggested Trump’s move was likely designed to troll Canada during an escalating trade dispute.

123...347Page 1 of 347
© Great America News Desk 2022