Latest

    Government

    Home Government

    South Korean President Presses Trump To Ease North Korea Sanctions

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    South Korean President Lee Jae Myung is publicly pressing President Donald Trump to consider easing sanctions on North Korea — a high-stakes gamble aimed at stopping Kim Jong Un from adding more nuclear weapons to his growing arsenal.

    Lee argued that demanding complete denuclearization before offering Pyongyang anything in return has produced a dangerous stalemate. In an interview with The New York Times, he proposed trading some sanctions relief for a verified halt to North Korea’s development of additional nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missile technology, The Hill reported.

    “Aiming for denuclearization under the current circumstances guarantees that nothing will be accomplished,” Lee told the Times.

    The South Korean leader said a freeze could open the door to reciprocal concessions, build trust and eventually persuade the North to begin reducing its stockpile. His pitch amounts to a phased approach: stop the growth of the arsenal first, then seek reductions and, ultimately, dismantlement.

    But it would also require Trump to decide whether sanctions relief could bring Kim back to the negotiating table — or merely reward a regime that has repeatedly advanced its weapons programs while talks remained frozen.

    Lee Warns The Clock Is Ticking

    Lee framed the proposal as a response to an increasingly urgent threat. He said South Korean estimates indicate North Korea may now be able to produce an additional 10 to 20 nuclear weapons each year.

    “Once it believes it has accumulated enough nuclear weapons and missiles to guarantee its survival, it will be tempted to export them to make money,” Lee told the Times. “That will be a truly dangerous moment.”

    The warning comes as Pyongyang continues to demonstrate new military capabilities. North Korea said this week that it tested a new hypersonic weapon designed to maneuver at low altitude and evade missile defenses, according to the Financial Times. The test added fresh pressure to diplomatic efforts by both Trump and Lee.

    Kim has also hardened his public position. Earlier this year, he described North Korea’s nuclear force as an “irreversible” shield and tied it directly to the regime’s survival, the Financial Times reported. Pyongyang has meanwhile drawn closer to Russia and China, giving it economic and diplomatic alternatives that could blunt Washington’s leverage.

    Trump’s Personal Diplomacy Faces A New Test

    Trump met Kim three times during his first term, including summits in Singapore and Hanoi and a meeting at the Korean Demilitarized Zone. The diplomacy produced dramatic images and an exchange of personal letters, but it did not deliver a lasting agreement to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program.

    Trump has nevertheless signaled that he remains open to another meeting. Lee has embraced that possibility, saying earlier this month that South Korea should help create the conditions for renewed U.S.-North Korea talks. He credited Trump’s outreach with creating “at least some possibility for a change” on the peninsula, according to The Korea Herald.

    Trump also ordered the annual U.S.-South Korean Ulchi Freedom Shield military exercise shortened in August, a move intended to reduce hostility and encourage diplomacy. North Korea did not respond by returning to talks and instead continued weapons tests and public criticism of the United States.

    That history underscores the central risk in Lee’s proposal: sanctions could be relaxed before the United States has proof that Kim intends to move beyond a temporary freeze. Supporters of a phased deal argue that waiting for an all-at-once surrender allows the arsenal to grow unchecked. Skeptics warn that Pyongyang could pocket concessions, preserve its existing weapons and later abandon negotiations.

    Washington And Seoul Still Demand Denuclearization

    Lee’s push does not formally abandon the goal of a nuclear-free North Korea. His government describes the freeze as the first stage of a longer process, not the final destination.

    That distinction was reinforced Monday, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined the foreign ministers of South Korea and Japan in reaffirming their “resolute commitment” to the complete denuclearization of North Korea. The three governments also called on Pyongyang to resume dialogue and backed continued efforts to block revenue supporting its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, according to Yonhap News Agency.

    The result leaves Trump with a difficult choice. He can maintain maximum pressure in pursuit of complete denuclearization, or test Lee’s argument that a smaller interim deal is the only realistic way to stop North Korea’s arsenal from becoming even more dangerous.

    For now, Kim has offered no sign that he is prepared to accept either path.

    Massie Launches Eight-Count Impeachment Effort Against Pete Hegseth

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    6
    David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, accusing him of continuing military operations in Iran without authorization from Congress.

    Massie presented the measure as a privileged resolution, meaning the Republican-controlled House must address it within two legislative days. House leaders could schedule a vote on the articles or attempt to table the resolution.

    The Kentucky congressman said Hegseth violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution and failed to ensure that federal laws—particularly those governing the use of military force—were faithfully executed.

    “By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,” Massie said in a statement announcing the resolution.

    Three of the articles concern the Iran conflict. They accuse Hegseth of participating in a war that Congress never formally authorized, disregarding congressional resolutions directing the removal of American forces and continuing operations beyond the deadlines established by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

    That law generally requires the president to end unauthorized military involvement within 60 days, with up to 30 additional days permitted when necessary for a safe withdrawal.

    Massie’s five other articles include allegations concerning civilian-protection laws, maritime strikes against suspected drug traffickers, alleged retaliation against Sen. Mark Kelly, the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and military operations in Yemen. Those accusations remain unproven allegations contained in the impeachment resolution.

    The Pentagon responded by defending Hegseth’s performance rather than addressing the war-powers arguments. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson told The Hill that Hegseth had strengthened the arsenal, reduced bureaucracy and improved recruitment and morale.

    The Trump administration has offered a different legal and factual account of the Iran conflict. In a formal policy statement, the White House said the hostilities that began Feb. 28 ended with an April 7 ceasefire. It argued that Trump retained constitutional authority to defend U.S. forces and counter threats from Iran.

    Congress has continued to challenge that position. The House approved war-powers resolutions in June and July directing the president to end unauthorized hostilities, with several Republicans joining Democrats.

    The impeachment effort also comes after a bitter Republican primary fight. Hegseth campaigned in Kentucky for Trump-backed former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who defeated Massie in May. Massie will remain in office until the end of his current term.

    Hegseth was already facing a separate impeachment resolution introduced by House Democrats in April. That six-article proposal included allegations involving the Iran conflict, the handling of sensitive information and congressional oversight. The full Democratic resolution is available through official House materials.

    Support for Massie’s resolution remains uncertain. Its privileged status, however, ensures that House leaders must respond and that lawmakers may soon be required to take a public position on the effort.

    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

    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

    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.

    FAA Seeks Permanent Airspace Restrictions Near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Marine One lifts-off after returning President Donald J. Trump to Mar-a-Lago Friday, March 29, 2019, following his visit to the 143-mile Herbert Hoover Dike near Canal Point, Fla., that surrounds Lake Okeechobee. The visit was part of an infrastructure inspection of the dike, which is part of the Kissimmee-Okeechobee Everglades system, and reduces impacts of flooding for areas of south Florida. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian) [Photo Credit: The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

    The Federal Aviation Administration is moving to permanently tighten the airspace surrounding President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate as federal officials confront persistent threats from unauthorized aircraft and potentially weaponized drones.

    The proposed rule, requested by the U.S. Secret Service, would establish a permanent Special Flight Rules Area around President Donald J. Trump International Airport in Palm Beach, formerly known as Palm Beach International Airport.

    “At the request of the U.S. Secret Service in the interest of national security, the FAA is proposing Special Air Traffic Rules for the airspace near Donald J. Trump International Airport,” an FAA spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

    The restricted zone would extend one nautical mile from Mar-a-Lago and reach from the surface to 2,000 feet above sea level.

    According to the FAA’s proposed rule, the Secret Service requested permanent restrictions because of “adverse threat intelligence” and the agency’s continuing mission to protect Trump.

    The Secret Service argued that stronger rules would “greatly increase” its ability to counter the “persistent risks” posed by unauthorized aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems operating near sensitive locations.

    Strict New Rules For Aircraft

    Pilots entering the proposed security zone would have to meet several conditions.

    Aircraft arriving at or departing from the Palm Beach airport would need an active visual or instrument flight plan, authorization from air traffic control and continuous two-way radio communication. Pilots would also be required to transmit a unique transponder code assigned by controllers.

    Military flights supporting the president or Secret Service, along with active law enforcement, firefighting and air ambulance operations, could still enter the area after receiving clearance and meeting the communication requirements.

    The permanent zone would not replace the larger temporary flight restrictions imposed when Trump is in Palm Beach. Those presidential restrictions can stretch 30 nautical miles from Mar-a-Lago and reach nearly 18,000 feet.

    Instead, the new rules would keep a smaller security perimeter in place even when the broader presidential restrictions are inactive.

    A temporary version of the proposed one-mile zone has been operating since October 2025 and is scheduled to expire on Oct. 20. The FAA said converting it into a permanent, charted restriction would improve public awareness and provide greater security than a temporary notice.

    FAA Tries To Avoid Airport Chaos

    The agency stopped short of proposing a complete ban on flights through the area because Mar-a-Lago sits dangerously close to the airport’s primary commercial runway.

    The FAA determined that establishing a fully prohibited zone could make Runway 28R/10L essentially unusable for many commercial aircraft. That runway averaged approximately 86 airline operations per day in 2025.

    The proposed system is designed to preserve commercial service while making it easier for federal authorities to identify and track aircraft entering the sensitive zone.

    According to the FAA, the plan would have “little to no impact” on the airport’s daily traffic because pilots are already following many of the same procedures under the temporary restriction.

    But whether the regulatory line will stop a determined attacker is another question.

    Drone Expert Sounds The Alarm

    Brett Velicovich, a former Army special operations intelligence analyst and drone expert, warned that declaring an area off-limits cannot replace systems capable of actively detecting and disabling hostile drones.

    “We’re going to have to have more counter-drone systems in place because it is not good enough simply for the FAA to send a message saying this area is a no-drone zone,” Velicovich told Fox News Digital. “When you’re a bad actor, that doesn’t matter.”

    Velicovich pointed to the 2024 assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Investigators later determined that the gunman had flown a commercially available drone near the rally site before opening fire.

    “When you look at what happened in Butler, it was discovered later on that the shooter had done very basic surveillance with a drone — a Chinese drone that you could buy off Amazon — before he conducted the attack against the president,” Velicovich said.

    The threat has only become more serious as commercially available drones grow cheaper, more capable and easier to modify.

    Fox News Digital reported that authorities disrupted a separate plot in June involving suspects accused of discussing an attack using explosive-laden drones during the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House.

    The FAA proposal is open for public comment through Oct. 2. The White House referred questions about the security plan to the Secret Service, which did not provide Fox News with additional comment.

    GOP Governor Sounds Alarm Over Trump DOJ’s Election-Day Tactics

    By
    admin
    -
    0
    Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    A Republican governor is pushing back against the Trump administration after Justice Department election monitors allegedly tried to question voters and gain access to voting equipment during Wyoming’s primary.

    Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon called the federal officials’ conduct “aggressive” and “irregular” after two attorneys from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division visited polling locations in Laramie County on Aug. 18.

    “It sounded like the behavior of the observers was a bit aggressive,” Gordon said Wednesday as Wyoming’s canvassing board met to certify the primary results.

    “It just was irregular,” he added.

    Gordon has directed Wyoming Attorney General Keith Kautz to investigate the federal operation and determine whether the monitors exceeded the authority granted to them by Congress.

    “I’m not objecting to the observers,” Gordon said. “But their behavior seemed to exceed what the authority that Congress had given them was.”

    Clerk Details Unexpected DOJ Visit

    Laramie County Clerk Debra Lee said two people identifying themselves as Justice Department election monitors appeared at a polling location with little warning.

    “Two individuals, identifying themselves as DOJ election monitors, informed our poll worker that they were here to monitor Wyoming’s Primary Elections,” Lee said in a statement.

    “They did not offer their credentials until I requested they do so.”

    Lee said a Justice Department official later told her that the deployment had been arranged on short notice and that an email intended for her office may have been sent to the wrong address.

    The federal attorneys reportedly began asking poll workers about their training, written election manuals and the county’s purchase of new voting equipment.

    They also sought access to examine ballot tabulators, according to Lee.

    Those requests appeared to extend beyond the enforcement of federal voting-rights and ballot-access laws, the clerk argued.

    But the greatest concern arose when the monitors reportedly sought permission to speak directly with voters inside polling places.

    The Justice Department said the proposed interviews would help determine whether Laramie County was complying with federal voting laws.

    Lee refused the request.

    “We do not allow interviews to be conducted in polling places,” she said.

    Wyoming restricts activity inside voting locations to protect ballot secrecy, prevent disruptions and ensure voters can cast their ballots without interference.

    “This was a poorly managed exercise and one that showed complete disregard for our state laws and administration of our elections,” Lee said.

    The clerk did not accuse the attorneys of handling ballots, changing votes or disrupting the final count. State officials described the primary as successful and reported no evidence of fraud or voting-rights violations.

    Republicans Split Over Federal Monitoring

    The controversy has exposed a rare disagreement among Republican officials in one of America’s most conservative states.

    Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray has generally supported the Trump administration’s election-integrity efforts and defended the legal basis for allowing observers inside polling places.

    Gray also disputed Gordon’s suggestion that federal officials had failed to communicate with state authorities.

    When Gordon asked whether the Justice Department contacted the secretary of state’s office before Election Day, Elections Division Director Paul Raines acknowledged receiving a message.

    “Our office had received an email, but that’s the extent of communications I’m aware of,” Raines said.

    Gordon said the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, the state attorney general and the Laramie County clerk were not properly informed about the deployment.

    “To my knowledge, the U.S. attorney was unaware of it,” Gordon added.

    U.S. Attorney Darin Smith, however, released a statement supporting the monitoring operation several hours after it was announced.

    “Voters deserve absolute confidence that their ballots are secure and their voices are heard without interference,” Smith said. “We are working alongside local officials to ensure every lawful vote is protected.”

    Trump DOJ Expands Election Oversight

    The Justice Department announced on primary morning that it was deploying two Civil Rights Division attorneys to Laramie County and four more to Miami-Dade County, Florida.

    “Election monitoring is an ongoing priority for this office,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said.

    “Nondiscriminatory monitoring ensures all elections remain free, fair, and accessible to all.”

    The department said the operation was designed to promote “transparency, ballot security, and compliance with federal law.”

    Federal attorneys routinely monitor elections for compliance with the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and other federal protections.

    The department has not explained why Laramie County was selected or identified a specific complaint that prompted the visit.

    It also had not publicly responded to Lee’s detailed allegations as of Thursday.

    The Wyoming deployment came as the Trump Justice Department dramatically expanded its election-monitoring operation. The Civil Rights Division said it sent more than 75 monitors to approximately 200 polling locations across five states during the 2026 primary season.

    The administration reportedly could deploy as many as 1,000 federal employees nationwide for November’s general election.

    Gordon framed the dispute as a matter of states’ rights rather than a partisan attack against President Donald Trump.

    “I feel very strongly about federal government coming in and taking our guns,” he said. “I don’t like that. And I don’t like federal government coming in and taking our votes either.”

    The governor stressed that he was not accusing federal officials of stealing ballots or corrupting the election.

    “I’m not saying anything went wrong or anything else, and I certainly think the conduct of this election was phenomenal,” Gordon said.

    His concern is whether the federal government attempted to assert power over state election administration that Congress never authorized.

    With a much larger federal presence expected in November, Wyoming’s investigation could determine whether state officials seek new restrictions—or even head to court—before Justice Department monitors return.

    Biden Considered Pardoning Trump Before Leaving Office

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

    Joe Biden may have come closer than anyone knew to handing Donald Trump the ultimate political get-out-of-jail-free card.

    Utah Gov. Spencer Cox claims Biden revealed during a private 2023 conversation that he and first lady Jill Biden had discussed pardoning Trump as the former president faced a growing pile of criminal charges.

    The startling exchange appears in Cox’s upcoming book, Off Ramp: How to Be a Peacemaker in an Age of Contempt, according to an excerpt published by The Atlantic and reported by Mediaite.

    Cox said the conversation unfolded inside a limousine during Biden’s August 2023 visit to Salt Lake City.

    The Republican governor decided to make a wildly unexpected pitch: Biden should use his presidential pardon power to spare the man who could soon become his general-election opponent.

    Biden’s reported response was even more surprising.

    “You know, I’ve actually considered this for a while,” Biden told him, according to Cox.

    The then-president allegedly added that he and Jill Biden had held a lengthy conversation about the idea in bed earlier that same week. Cox said Biden promised to give the proposal serious consideration.

    At the time, Trump was facing two federal prosecutions—one involving classified documents kept at Mar-a-Lago and another tied to his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results.

    Those were the only cases Biden could have touched. A presidential pardon applies to federal offenses, not Trump’s state charges or the civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

    The private conversation reportedly came as Cox publicly went out of his way to welcome Biden to deep-red Utah.

    Cox was the lone high-profile Utah Republican to attend Biden’s speech at a Salt Lake City veterans hospital, where the president promoted expanded benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances.

    “There has been some question over whether or not the governor of the state of Utah would welcome the president of a different party,” Cox told the crowd, according to KUTV.

    Cox called the controversy over simply welcoming a president from the opposing party “insane” and urged Americans to find ways to disagree without treating political rivals as enemies.

    That appeal became the central theme of his new book—and apparently drove his extraordinary pardon proposal.

    Biden ultimately kept the pardon pen away from Trump.

    But he certainly did not put it away altogether.

    After repeatedly insisting that he would not intervene in his son’s criminal cases, Biden issued Hunter Biden a sweeping pardon in December 2024 covering potential federal offenses committed over nearly 11 years.

    Hours before leaving office, Biden also granted preemptive pardons to five family members, Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, members of the House Jan. 6 committee and police officers who testified before it, according to Roll Call.

    Cox was not the only prominent Utah Republican who believed pardoning Trump could have lowered the nation’s political temperature.

    Then-Sen. Mitt Romney made the same argument publicly in May 2024, saying Biden should have acted immediately after the federal indictments were announced.

    “I’d have pardoned President Trump,” Romney said, arguing that the country did not want to endure the prosecution of a former president in the middle of an election.

    No pardon ever came.

    Trump instead won his way back to the White House, and the federal cases against him were abandoned after the 2024 election under the Justice Department’s longstanding policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

    Cox later endorsed Trump after the 2024 assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, hoping the near-tragedy would push him toward a more unifying political style.

    Philly DA Vows to ‘Blow Up’ Trump’s White House Ballroom

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    9
    The White House during construction of the State Ballroom on 2026-01-14, Washington, DC

    Philadelphia’s far-left district attorney is dreaming about demolishing President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom—and keeping a piece of the wreckage as a souvenir.

    Larry Krasner made the stunning remarks Tuesday during Philadelphia’s annual slavery commemoration ceremony at the President’s House site near Independence Hall.

    According to video obtained by NBC10 Philadelphia, Krasner predicted that Trump’s ballroom would be destroyed within the next 10 to 15 years.

    “I’m gonna have a paperweight sitting on my desk,” Krasner said, according to the Washington Examiner. “You know what that paperweight is gonna be? It’s gonna be a piece of a ballroom after we all blow it up.”

    Krasner later clarified that he envisioned the destruction taking place during an “official ceremony,” with pieces of the building sold as paperweights to reimburse taxpayers.

    But the clarification did little to take the edge off the extraordinary image of an elected district attorney talking publicly about blowing up part of the White House complex.

    Krasner also unleashed a personal tirade against Trump during the event, calling the president a “pain in the a–” and agreeing with an audience member who described Trump as “the devil.”

    The progressive prosecutor accused Trump of embodying hatred and ignorance before turning his fury toward two of the president’s high-profile renovation projects.

    “There will not be a ballroom,” Krasner declared. “There will not be a Kennedy Center renamed for a fool.”

    The White House quickly fired back.

    “Only people who suffer from a severe and incurable disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome would find a problem with that,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle told Fox News Digital.

    Ingle said Trump was carrying out long-overdue renovations designed to beautify and preserve the White House for future generations as the nation celebrates its 250th anniversary.

    The Secret Service also took notice.

    “The U.S. Secret Service investigates anything that can be perceived as a threat toward our protectees,” agency spokesman Nate Herring told Fox News Digital, while declining to discuss specific protective-intelligence matters.

    Krasner’s outburst came amid an escalating fight over how American history is presented at the President’s House site, where George Washington lived while Philadelphia served as the nation’s capital.

    Trump signed an executive order in March 2025 directing federal museums, parks and historical sites to eliminate what his administration considers divisive ideological narratives and instead emphasize America’s achievements and progress.

    Acting under that order, the National Park Service removed interpretive panels and disabled video exhibits at the President’s House site in January. The displays focused heavily on the nine enslaved people Washington brought to the Philadelphia residence.

    The city sued, and a federal judge initially ordered the displays restored. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later vacated that injunction, concluding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over several of Philadelphia’s claims.

    Krasner insisted Tuesday that the slavery memorial and its educational materials would ultimately survive the Trump administration.

    His ballroom prediction, however, targeted a project that is still moving rapidly toward completion.

    The approximately $400 million, 90,000-square-foot addition is designed to accommodate roughly 1,000 guests and includes major security infrastructure beneath the building. Trump has argued that the facility will allow presidents to host large events without leaving the heavily protected White House grounds.

    The ballroom is reportedly about 65% complete. Chief Justice John Roberts recently issued a temporary order allowing construction to continue while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s challenge to lower-court restrictions on the project.

    123...20Page 1 of 20
    © Great America News Desk 2022