Home Blog

Mullin: Another Terror Attack Is A Matter Of When, Blames Sanctuary Policies For Security Gaps

By
Patrick Houck
-
0
DHSgov, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned on the 25th anniversary of 9/11 that another terrorist attack remains a question of “when,” while arguing that sanctuary jurisdictions make it harder for federal authorities to protect the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned Friday that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack, using a 9/11 anniversary address to argue that sanctuary city policies create dangerous gaps in federal law enforcement.

Speaking at the Department of Homeland Security’s Resilience Plaza in Washington, Mullin credited the department with helping prevent another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. However, he cautioned that the evolving threat from foreign terrorist groups, domestic extremists, drones, and other emerging tactics makes another attempt a “matter of when.”

Mullin did not identify a specific, imminent plot. His warning came as federal authorities circulated a bulletin saying foreign terrorist organizations continue to encourage attacks in the United States and may use the 25th anniversary of 9/11 to inspire violence or hoax threats.

The bulletin said potential attackers have demonstrated a willingness to act with little or no warning, according to ABC News.

Mullin targets sanctuary jurisdictions

Mullin’s remarks moved from the broader terrorism threat to the administration’s continuing dispute with cities and states that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

“It is tough to sometimes fight, and I’m not trying to get political here, but I will,” Mullin said.

“Sanctuary cities, where they don’t want us to go into, and they’re harboring and abetting activities just like this. They can say it’s for humanitarian purposes, but the truth is, when you become a sanctuary city and you were not supporting law enforcement and you are not allowing law enforcement to do their job, it is a safe haven that incubates terrorist activity.”

Mullin named Seattle, San Francisco, New York City, Boston, and Fairfax, Virginia, as jurisdictions where local restrictions can impede federal enforcement.

“And it does not just stay local in Seattle or San Francisco or New York City or Boston, or even Fairfax, Virginia,” he said. “It bleeds into other parts of the country.”

Sanctuary policies generally restrict when local police or jail officials may share information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or hold someone beyond a scheduled release based solely on an ICE request. They do not prevent federal agents from enforcing federal immigration law inside those jurisdictions.

Supporters argue the restrictions encourage immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with local police without fearing deportation. The Trump administration contends that the policies allow removable immigrants, including some with violent criminal histories or suspected terrorist connections, to remain in American communities.

Federal bulletin describes changing danger

The security bulletin issued before the anniversary did not specifically attribute the terrorism threat to sanctuary jurisdictions. It warned that overseas terrorist organizations continue to promote attacks and that conflicts in the Middle East could intensify grievances against the United States.

DHS described the country as facing a “heightened and increasingly complex terrorism threat environment.”

“Before 9/11, the primary concern came from centralized international terrorist organizations. Today, those groups remain a threat, but the landscape is broader and more dispersed,” a DHS spokesperson said. “Individuals and small cells now plot attacks independently, often motivated by a range of ideological and political goals.”

ISIS and al Qaeda continue to seek opportunities to conduct or inspire attacks inside the United States, the department said. Domestic terrorists motivated by anti-government beliefs and other causes also remain a concern.

Federal officials said the FBI had arrested at least 16 people during the previous 18 months for allegedly plotting or supporting attacks on behalf of ISIS or al Qaeda.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s 2026 threat assessment estimated that ISIS had as many as 18,000 members worldwide, while al-Qaeda’s broader network included up to 28,000. The groups increasingly rely on digital propaganda to inspire supporters in Western countries where organizing large, centrally directed operations is more difficult.

Drones and artificial intelligence add new concerns

DHS also warned that extremists are experimenting with generative artificial intelligence to produce propaganda and research explosives or biological agents.

“Terrorists are increasingly experimenting with generative AI, not only to create and circulate violent online propaganda, but to explore ways to use explosives and biological agents to conduct attacks,” the department said.

Federal authorities are separately preparing for the possibility that terrorists could use commercially available drones to strike critical infrastructure or interfere with emergency personnel. The United States has not experienced a large-scale terrorist attack involving drones, but the technology has become a central concern for the FBI and DHS.

The immediate anniversary warning did not describe a known plan involving drones, biological weapons, or AI. It instead outlined capabilities that terrorist groups may attempt to exploit.

Debate over federal pressure continues

Mullin has previously proposed withholding federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions and reconsidering federal customs operations at international airports serving cities that resist the administration’s immigration policies.

He said earlier in September that administration officials were examining how federal funding could legally be withheld. Any broad effort to condition grants or withdraw personnel would likely face court challenges and strong opposition from state and local officials.

The administration has also cited recent immigration operations as evidence that federal intervention is needed. During “Operation Rotten Apple,” ICE arrested more than 2,100 people in New York, including individuals with convictions or allegations involving murder, sexual offenses, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, according to a DHS account of the operation.

Mullin’s address connected that immigration dispute to the department’s founding mission after 9/11. His warning did not establish that another attack is imminent, but it underscored the administration’s view that fragmented cooperation between federal and local authorities could leave vulnerabilities as terrorist tactics become more decentralized and difficult to detect.

READ NEXT: UCLA’s 9/11 Event Features Speakers With Radical Records

Vance Fires Back At Mexican Flag-Waving Protester During GOP Speech

By
Patrick Houck
-
0
White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The vice president offered to buy the heckler a plane ticket to Mexico after the troublemaker interrupted his address at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

Vice President JD Vance drew one of the loudest reactions of the Republican midterm convention Thursday after responding to a protester who interrupted his speech while waving a Mexican flag.

The disruption occurred roughly 15 minutes into Vance’s address in Dallas as he discussed what he called Americans’ “birthright” to safe communities, affordable homes, strong families, and economic opportunity.

Vance stopped speaking as the protester, dressed in a purple shirt, waved the flag and shouted from the audience. Other attendees booed and began chanting “USA” as security personnel moved toward the demonstrator.

“What the people at home missed is that we just had a protester interrupting us and waving the Mexican flag,” Vance told the crowd.

“Well, my friend, if you love Mexico so much, get your ass over there,” he continued. “I’ll buy you the plane ticket.”

The crowd erupted in cheers before resuming its “USA” chant. The protester was escorted out of the convention.

Watch: Vance Responds to Mexican Flag-Waving Protester

Vance departs from his prepared speech

Vance continued addressing the incident after security removed the demonstrator, telling the audience that the interruption had prompted him to change his prepared remarks.

“I had a whole speech written, but I think I got to change it because we just discovered the symbol of the far left, an idiot waving an American fla— or a Mexican flag at a protest when he should be waving the flag of the United States of America,” Vance said.

He then argued that the protester would prefer living in an American city to moving to Mexico.

“Now, we all know, of course, that as much as that person might wave around a foreign flag, he’d much rather live in Dallas or in Cincinnati or in any one of our great cities than Mexico,” Vance said.

The brief confrontation became the most prominent unscripted moment of the vice president’s address and drew wider attention than many of the policy arguments contained in the speech.

The official broadcast did not clearly show the protester, but videos recorded inside the arena captured portions of the disruption and the crowd’s response.

Speech centered on family and national identity

Vance’s speech focused heavily on family formation, economic security, immigration, education, crime, and American national identity.

The vice president said every American child should inherit the benefits of citizenship regardless of the identity or background of his or her parents.

“I believe that our founders built this nation on a promise that echoes our creator, that every American child is born an heir, is born with a birthright, born with the right to inherit the blessings of the greatest country on earth, not because of who their parents are, not because of what they look like or where they come from, but because they are Americans, and this is our country,” Vance said.

The address also included a personal tribute to Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist assassinated one year earlier. Vance described Kirk as a close friend, praised his commitment to family life, and addressed remarks to Kirk’s young children.

Vance connected that discussion to the recent birth of his fourth child with second lady Usha Vance. He said becoming a father again had sharpened his focus on what the administration should deliver for American families.

The vice president called for schools that emphasize reading, writing, arithmetic, and patriotism. He also cited public safety, employment, housing costs, religious liberty, and parental authority as central concerns heading into the November midterm elections.

Republicans urged to remain united

Vance used the second half of the address to contrast the Trump administration’s record with Democratic policies and to encourage Republicans to remain engaged even when they disagree with the White House.

He pointed to Kirk as an example of a conservative who remained active in Republican politics despite holding differences with the administration, particularly over foreign military involvement.

“I’m not asking anybody to agree with me on every single issue,” Vance said. “What I am asking you to do is to recognize the contrast with the radicals and recognize the achievements of the last 18 months.”

The vice president also criticized several Democratic candidates by name, including Texas Senate nominee James Talarico and Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. His broader argument was that the midterms represented a contest over family, immigration, economic policy, and national culture.

At one point, attendees again chanted Vance’s name, prompting him to deflect speculation about his political future.

“We gotta take care of business this November, then we’ll worry about what comes next,” Vance said.

The remark came as Vance continues to be discussed as a possible contender for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination. He did not announce a campaign or directly address whether he intends to run.

Convention turns toward November

Vance spoke on the second and final day of the Dallas gathering, which brought together Republican officials, candidates, activists, and voters ahead of the November elections.

President Donald Trump later closed the convention after delivering a much longer address the previous day. Speakers repeatedly warned that Democratic control of Congress could halt the administration’s agenda and expose administration officials to investigations.

For Vance, the protester’s interruption offered an unexpected opportunity to reinforce the patriotic and immigration themes running through his speech. His promise of a plane ticket lasted only seconds, but the audience’s response made it one of the convention’s defining moments.

READ NEXT: Houthis Tighten Their Grip On The Gateway To The Red Sea

Democrats Prepare Hegseth Investigations If They Win Congress

By
Patrick Houck
-
1
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
-
1

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
-
1
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
-
3
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.

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