2026

Home 2026

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

3
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

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

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

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

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.

Trump Super PAC Readies $400 Million Midterm Spending Blitz

1
Political representation of parties making money

President Donald Trump’s primary super PAC is preparing to enter the midterm fight in August, bringing a roughly $400 million war chest to a congressional map where Republicans are defending narrow majorities and significantly more vulnerable seats.

MAGA Inc. has largely remained on the sidelines this cycle despite accumulating approximately $401 million. Journalist Jake Traylor reported the August spending timeline Monday, citing a Republican operative, while MS NOW separately reported that Trump’s political operation plans to use the money to reinforce Republican incumbents and put Democratic-held seats in play.

James Blair, Trump’s former White House political director and a coordinator of his midterm effort, has promised a substantial investment.

“I won’t specifically say what’s going to be spent, but the president is going to expend substantial resources to win the midterms,” Blair said during a June interview.

“He cares deeply about the party winning and anything he can do to support that he’s going to do and is already doing,” Blair added. “I think you’ll see a lot of spending on behalf of Republicans earlier than you normally do because of the additional resources.”

The scale of those resources is unusual for a super PAC connected to a president who is not on the ballot. MAGA Inc. began 2026 with approximately $300 million and raised nearly $19 million in June, according to its latest federal disclosures. The June haul included $10 million from cryptocurrency investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the Financial Times reported.

The more pressing question has been when the organization would begin using that money.

MAGA Inc. has spent only about $2.3 million supporting Republican candidates so far—roughly 0.6% of its available cash. Its spending has been limited to special House elections in Georgia and Tennessee and the successful Republican primary challenge against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, according to campaign finance reporting reviewed by Bloomberg and People.

The super PAC has spent approximately $3 million on salaries, fundraising, compliance and other operating expenses—more than it has directed toward congressional races.

“That’s the $400 million question. I don’t know,” one Republican operative told MS NOW when asked why MAGA Inc. had waited. “They have indicated they’re going to spend. But not where or when. And those are kind of big details.”

The August rollout could help answer some of those questions at a critical point in the election calendar.

Republicans are defending 14 of the 18 House seats currently rated as toss-ups by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Nine additional districts lean Republican, creating a largely defensive House map for the party.

Four Senate races are currently rated as toss-ups: an open seat in Michigan and Republican-held seats in Alaska, Maine and Ohio. Other contests in Iowa, North Carolina and Texas could also attract significant outside spending as Democrats search for the four-seat net gain they would need to secure an outright Senate majority.

Trump’s operation is expected to give Republican candidates some flexibility to separate themselves from the administration on issues that could become liabilities in individual states or districts. MS NOW reported that strategists are allowing battleground Republicans to create distance from Trump on the economy and the war in Iran, where internal polling reportedly shows dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of both issues.

One Republican operative said the broader closing argument would establish “a very sharp contrast” between GOP candidates and their Democratic opponents.

Republicans are also being encouraged to localize their campaigns around provisions in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the tax-and-spending law enacted in 2025. Rather than campaigning on the legislation as a whole, candidates are expected to highlight individual provisions—including changes to taxes on tips and overtime, an expanded child tax credit and a higher cap on state and local tax deductions.

Rep. Tom Barrett offers an early example of that localized approach. The Michigan Republican joined Democrats on Thursday in supporting a resolution directing Trump to end U.S. military operations in Iran. The measure passed the House 214-208, with Barrett among four Republicans who crossed party lines.

Despite the disagreement, Barrett appeared with Trump during the president’s Monday visit to Michigan. Barrett represents a competitive mid-Michigan district expected to draw significant attention from both parties this fall.

MAGA Inc.’s entry will add to a broader Republican financial advantage. Bloomberg calculated that Trump’s political operation, Republican Party committees and GOP-aligned congressional super PACs held approximately $1.1 billion through June, compared with roughly $355 million across equivalent Democratic organizations.

That advantage is not uniform, however. Several Democratic candidates in competitive races have outraised their Republican opponents, while Democratic groups are beginning to place their own major advertising reservations. Senate Majority PAC, the leading Democratic Senate super PAC, recently announced an additional $54 million in television advertising targeting four Republican-held seats.

The arrival of MAGA Inc.’s money could help Republicans erase some of those candidate-level disparities and force Democrats to redirect resources toward races they had expected to defend comfortably.

What remains unknown is how widely Trump’s team will distribute the money—and whether it will concentrate on protecting Republican incumbents or attempt to expand the battlefield into Democratic territory.

With Election Day approaching and most competitive races moving into their general-election phase, that decision could shape where both parties are forced to spend during the final three months of the campaign.

Mike Johnson Urges Trump Administration To Bring Iran War To A Close

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

For months, Republican leaders have defended President Donald Trump’s campaign against Iran. Now one of Trump’s closest allies on Capitol Hill is publicly delivering another message: it’s time to finish the job and come home.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday called on the administration to wrap up the war, arguing that the United States has already achieved its primary military objectives and should avoid allowing the conflict to become another prolonged American intervention.

‘We’ve got to wrap it up’

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Johnson was asked whether Congress might eventually step in to limit Trump’s war powers if the fighting continued.

Rather than entertain that possibility, the speaker predicted the campaign was nearing its conclusion.

“I think we’re wrapping it up,” Johnson said. “We’ve got to wrap it up.”

He cautioned that allowing the conflict to drag on would be damaging not only for the United States but for the broader international community.

“That would be a disaster for everybody,” he said. “Everybody around the world understands that.”

WATCH:

Backing the war, but not an endless one

Johnson’s comments were notable because they stopped well short of criticizing Trump’s decision to launch the operation.

Instead, the speaker reaffirmed his longstanding position that military action was necessary to halt Iran’s nuclear and missile ambitions. He has also opposed bipartisan efforts to curb the president’s authority while American troops remain in combat.

The message was clear: support the mission, but don’t let it become another endless war.

The costs continue to rise

Johnson’s remarks come as the political and financial costs of the conflict continue to grow.

According to Pentagon estimates, the war has already cost roughly $37.5 billion. At least 17 American service members have been killed and more than 100 wounded. The administration is now asking Congress for another $87.6 billion to continue military operations.

Trump has shown little sign of easing public pressure on Tehran, warning that significantly heavier military action remains on the table if Iran refuses to meet U.S. demands.

A shift in Republican messaging

Johnson’s comments reflect a subtle but important shift inside the Republican Party.

Few Republican leaders are openly questioning the decision to go to war. Increasingly, however, they are signaling that recent military gains should be followed by an effort to end the conflict rather than allow it to become an open-ended U.S. military commitment.

That balancing act is likely to become more difficult as casualties mount, costs rise, and public support for the conflict continues to erode.

READ NEXT: Why Is Security Still At McConnell’s Hospital?

Nancy Mace Says Rift With Trump May Have Ended Her Political Career

4
Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) says her public break with President Donald Trump may have permanently damaged her political future, acknowledging that the fallout could have brought her elected career to an end.

Mace made the remarks Monday during an appearance on NewsNation with host Chris Cuomo, where she was asked about her next move following the death of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the race to fill his vacant Senate seat.

The comments come just weeks after Mace suffered a disappointing finish in South Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial primary, where she placed fifth after Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette instead of her campaign.

Epstein files became a flashpoint

Mace’s latest split with Trump centered on the release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Last year, Mace joined a small group of House Republicans in signing a discharge petition that forced a vote on legislation requiring the Department of Justice to release its Epstein files. The law directed the DOJ to make the records public with only victims’ identities redacted.

Congress ultimately approved the measure, and Trump signed it into law. The president had the authority to release the files administratively but instead signed the legislation after it passed both chambers.

The issue became the latest chapter in Mace’s often complicated relationship with Trump, which has shifted between alliance and public disagreement over the years.

Trump backed a rival

The political fallout became evident during South Carolina’s gubernatorial race.

In May, Trump declined to endorse Mace and instead threw his support behind Evette in the crowded Republican primary. One month later, Mace finished fifth in the race.

She has already announced she will not seek another term in the House when her current term expires in January.

Senate race questions remain

During Monday’s interview, Cuomo pressed Mace on whether she plans to run in the special election created by Graham’s death.

Earlier in the day, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster appointed Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, to serve the remainder of his Senate term until January. Voters will choose the Republican nominee in a special election on Aug. 11, with the winner advancing to face Democratic nominee Annie Andrews in the general election.

When Cuomo asked directly whether she intended to enter the race, Mace declined to give a clear answer.

“My focus right now is focusing on South Carolina,” she said.

Cuomo then suggested that Mace’s disagreement with Trump over the Epstein files could complicate any Senate campaign.

“But could that be enough to ruin your chances?” he asked.

Mace did not dismiss the possibility.

“It may have ended my political career, Chris,” she replied.

“You said it,” Cuomo responded.

‘I got my butt beat’

Mace said she has built her political identity by criticizing members of both parties when she believes they deserve it.

“I enjoy calling out Democrats and Republicans alike,” she said.

She also acknowledged the reality of her recent electoral defeat.

“I got my butt beat in the governor’s race, OK?” Mace said. “So, you know, those are all things that you sort of weigh.”

Future remains uncertain

Although Mace stopped short of announcing whether she will enter South Carolina’s Senate special election, her remarks highlighted the uncertainty surrounding her political future.

Once viewed as one of the state’s rising Republican stars, Mace now faces difficult questions after her gubernatorial defeat and high-profile split with Trump. Whether she seeks another office or steps away from electoral politics altogether remains an open question.

READ NEXT: The Unusual Souvenir Trump Wants To Keep

Trump Prime-Time Speech: Direct Address On Iran & Election Security

0
President Donald J. Trump hosts a Rose Garden Club dinner in honor of Police Week in the White House Rose Garden, Monday, May 11, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

President Donald Trump will deliver a prime-time “Speech to the Nation” from the White House on Thursday evening, with senior administration officials saying the address is expected to cover a variety of topics — including election integrity and the ongoing confrontation with Iran.

Trump announced the address Monday on Truth Social, saying it will begin at 9 p.m. ET. While he did not outline the full agenda, a senior adviser described the speech as a “potpourri” of issues the president considers most important.

Iran expected to be a major focus

According to a senior White House adviser, Trump is expected to provide an update on the administration’s response to Iran following weeks of escalating tensions in the Middle East.

The address comes after the United States launched additional military strikes against Iranian targets in response to renewed threats against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Trump has repeatedly vowed to keep the strategic waterway open and has warned Tehran of further consequences if it interferes with international maritime traffic.

Election integrity also on agenda

The adviser said election integrity is also expected to feature prominently in the speech.

Online speculation suggested Trump might revisit the 2020 Georgia Senate runoff elections, but the White House adviser rejected those reports, saying the president does not plan to focus specifically on those contests.

Instead, the president is expected to discuss election security more broadly as he continues pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and other election reforms ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Trump wants more prime-time addresses

Although Trump frequently speaks with reporters and holds campaign-style events, he has delivered relatively few formal, direct-to-camera prime-time addresses from the White House during his second term.

According to the senior adviser, the president wants to make such speeches a more regular part of his communications strategy, allowing him to address Americans directly on issues he considers significant.

The White House has not released additional details about the speech’s format or confirmed where on the White House grounds Trump will deliver the remarks.

With Iran, election security and other major issues expected to be discussed, Thursday’s address is shaping up to be one of the administration’s highest-profile televised events in recent months.

READ NEXT: Top Trump Official Pressured To Replace Lindsey Graham

Scott Bessent Emerges As Top Contender For Lindsey Graham’s Senate Seat

[Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is being encouraged to enter the suddenly open race for South Carolina’s U.S. Senate seat, a move that could place one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent Cabinet officials at the center of what is shaping up to be a closely watched Republican primary.

According to Politico, supporters reached out to Bessent on Sunday, urging him to run following the unexpected death of longtime Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The outreach immediately adds another high-profile name to the growing list of Republicans being discussed as potential successors to Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate for more than two decades.

Graham died Saturday at the age of 71. A preliminary autopsy determined that he died from an aortic dissection caused by arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, commonly known as hardening of the arteries.

No indication Bessent plans to run

Despite the speculation, Bessent has given no public indication that he intends to launch a Senate campaign.

People close to the Treasury secretary told Politico that he remains focused on leading the Treasury Department, a position he had long hoped to hold. A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment on the reports.

Still, even the possibility of a Bessent candidacy could reshape the race.

A South Carolina native, Bessent maintains homes in Charleston and Washington. Before joining the Trump administration, he built a successful career as a financier and hedge fund manager. Since taking office, he has become one of the administration’s most visible public advocates for Trump’s economic agenda, defending the president’s tax, trade, energy, and tariff policies in frequent television appearances and public events.

A different kind of Senate candidate

If Bessent entered the race, he would bring a combination of political and financial advantages uncommon for a first-time Senate candidate.

His statewide roots, personal wealth, experience in financial markets, and close relationship with Trump would make him an immediate contender in a Republican primary expected to place a premium on loyalty to the president and the ability to quickly organize a statewide campaign.

Bessent has also developed a higher political profile than many Treasury secretaries.

Initially viewed primarily as a market-focused economic expert, he has increasingly become one of the administration’s most outspoken defenders, regularly making the case for Trump’s broader policy agenda in addition to his economic initiatives.

A difficult decision

Running for the Senate would require Bessent to give up one of the most influential positions in the federal government.

As Treasury secretary, he serves as the administration’s chief economic spokesman and plays a central role in shaping tax policy, tariffs, sanctions, financial regulation, and international economic negotiations.

Those responsibilities could prove more appealing than leaving for a rapidly unfolding Senate campaign.

At the same time, opportunities to seek a Republican Senate seat in a state as reliably conservative as South Carolina are rare. The GOP nominee would begin the general election as the clear favorite.

Race expected to move quickly

South Carolina officials are expected to move quickly to fill the vacancy.

Gov. Henry McMaster is expected to appoint a temporary replacement while the state prepares for a special nominating process ahead of the November election.

Several prominent Republicans are already being mentioned as possible candidates, including Rep. Nancy Mace, who is reportedly giving serious consideration to entering the race.

The addition of Bessent’s name, however, would introduce a nationally recognized figure with deep financial resources and direct ties to the White House.

It would also create a significant personnel decision for Trump.

A successful Bessent Senate campaign would give the president another close ally on Capitol Hill for years to come. But it would also require Trump to replace a Treasury secretary who has become a central figure in advancing the administration’s economic agenda.

READ NEXT: Hunter Biden Scores Massive Legal Victory