Latest

    News

    Home News

    Supreme Court Gives Trump Green Light To Resume Third-Country Deportations

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    President Donald Trump’s deportation campaign just got a green light from the Supreme Court — with a bigger legal showdown still ahead.

    The justices on Tuesday, September 29, allowed the administration to resume its contested third-country removal policy, pausing a Massachusetts federal court judgment that had blocked it. The apparent 6–3 split left Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson opposing the stay.

    The policy allows immigration officials to send people with final removal orders to countries other than those specified in their orders, often nations other than their homelands. The Court also agreed to hear the case in December, setting up a full review of the administration’s authority.

    DHS Celebrates The Ruling

    DHS General Counsel James Percival welcomed the decision, saying the department’s third-country removal policy was back in effect and calling it the administration’s second Supreme Court victory in less than a week.

    “A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike,” Percival wrote on X, according to The Daily Wire.

    The administration argues that third-country removals provide a way to deport people whose home countries will not accept them, including individuals convicted of serious crimes.

    In its September 24 emergency application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the policy as “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.”

    A Dispute Over Notice And Safety

    The fight centers on what protections migrants must receive before being sent to another country.

    U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston found that the administration’s procedures did not provide adequate notice or a meaningful chance to raise fears of torture or persecution at the proposed destination, NPR reported.

    The administration contends that credible assurances from a receiving country that it will not persecute or torture deportees can permit prompt removal. Its court filing says that, without those assurances, the policy provides notice and an opportunity to raise fears of mistreatment.

    Government lawyers also said the lower-court ruling had forced officials to cancel a flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions to three countries, triggering additional diplomatic negotiations. Those assertions were part of the administration’s request for emergency relief.

    Attorneys challenging the policy argue that removing people without meaningful notice can expose them to serious harm. Their court papers described allegations of arbitrary detention, beatings, sexual assault and people being sent onward to countries from which they had already received protection, according to NPR.

    December Brings The Larger Showdown

    Tuesday’s order gives Trump an immediate enforcement victory, but the policy’s ultimate legality remains unresolved.

    The justices will consider whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it could grant relief covering the entire class of migrants, and whether the government’s policy violates federal immigration law, constitutional due process or protections against torture.

    For now, the lower-court judgment remains paused while the Supreme Court proceeds toward a final decision.

    Kristi Noem Files for Divorce After 34 Years of Marriage

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

    Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has filed for divorce from her husband, Bryon, bringing a 34-year marriage to court after months of public speculation about the couple.

    The case appeared in Hamlin County, South Dakota, court records this week. The filing cites irreconcilable differences, according to NewsNation’s report on the documents. The Noems married on May 23, 1992, and have three adult children.

    The public filing gives no further explanation for the split. Bryon Noem told Nexstar’s KELO on Tuesday, “I can’t comment right now,” according to the NewsNation account. The outlet said it was unable to reach Kristi Noem.

    Months of speculation

    The marriage had drawn attention since late March, when the Daily Mail published photos and messages it said showed Bryon Noem interacting with online fetish performers. A representative for Kristi Noem said at the time that the family had been “blindsided” and asked for privacy and prayers. The public divorce filing does not establish what prompted Noem’s decision.

    In July, Kristi Noem’s mother, Corinne Arnold, told the Daily Mail the couple was headed for divorce. Bryon was absent from the August unveiling of a statue honoring Kristi’s time as South Dakota governor. At the event, she said her family, including Bryon, had supported her during her years in office.

    The Trump administration connection

    The filing also renews attention on Noem’s final weeks at the Department of Homeland Security. During a March House Judiciary Committee hearing, a Democratic lawmaker asked about reports of a romantic relationship between Noem and Corey Lewandowski, a former Trump campaign manager who worked as an adviser at DHS. Noem dismissed the question as “tabloid garbage.” Both Noem and Lewandowski have denied the allegations. The divorce filing offers no evidence about those claims. cbsnews.com

    Lewandowski’s authority at DHS had separately come under congressional scrutiny. ProPublica reported that agency records contradicted Noem’s testimony denying he had a role in approving contracts. That dispute concerned government oversight, separate from the couple’s divorce.

    President Donald Trump removed Noem from DHS in March and named her special envoy for the Shield of the Americas, a Western Hemisphere security initiative. She previously served as South Dakota’s governor from 2019 until joining Trump’s Cabinet in 2025.

    For now, neither Noem has publicly explained the divorce filing beyond the irreconcilable differences stated in the court record.

    Supreme Court Hands Trump A Major Election-Year Win

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant victory Friday, clearing the way for his administration to revive an expanded federal database that states can use to check voters’ citizenship ahead of the November midterms.

    In a 6–3 order, the justices paused a lower court ruling that had shut down the administration’s overhaul of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE. The move allows the Department of Homeland Security to operate the expanded system while the legal fight continues.

    The decision gives Trump a boost in his push to tighten voter eligibility checks. It does not authorize a broad, last-minute purge of voter rolls, and the Court has yet to issue a final ruling on the program’s legality.

    What the ruling changes

    SAVE dates to 1986 and originally drew mainly on immigration records. Following a March 2025 executive order, the administration connected it to Social Security Administration records and added the ability to search multiple names at once. State and local election officials can use the expanded system to check whether people registering or already on voter rolls are citizens.

    The League of Women Voters, several affiliates and a privacy group challenged those changes. A federal district judge in Washington set aside the overhaul in June, finding violations of the Social Security Act, the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. A divided federal appeals court then refused to put that ruling on hold.

    The Supreme Court took a different view. Its unsigned majority opinion said federal law likely permits the information sharing at issue and that the government would be harmed if it could not use the system it considers best suited to helping states verify citizenship. As ABC News reported, the ruling lifts the lower court’s block for now.

    Federal law requires states to finish programs designed to systematically remove ineligible voters at least 90 days before a federal election. The majority acknowledged that the rule limits the immediate effect of its decision, but said election officials may still make individualized inquiries during that period. The Court left for a separate case the question of how the 90-day rule applies to programs targeting noncitizens.

    A sharp dissent

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, warned that outdated citizenship information could put eligible voters at risk. The majority itself noted the case of a naturalized citizen whose Social Security records did not accurately reflect her citizenship, though it concluded the challengers’ legal claims were unlikely to succeed.

    The administration argues the expanded tool helps states identify ineligible registrations. In its Supreme Court filing, it said the system had confirmed more than 65 million voters as citizens across 26 states and flagged 28,635 potential noncitizens. That latter figure is not a count of proven illegal votes. ABC News has reported that documented noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare.

    Trump’s Arch Plan Pushes Ahead After Preservation Talks Break Down

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Reflecting Pool

    President Donald Trump’s planned triumphal arch has hit a new stage in its fight with preservation officials: A federal council is ending talks aimed at resolving objections to the 250-foot monument near Arlington National Cemetery.

    The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation told the National Park Service Thursday that it was “terminating consultation” under the National Historic Preservation Act. The move follows months of disagreement over the arch’s effect on historic views around Memorial Circle, Arlington Memorial Bridge and the approach to the cemetery.

    That does not give the project final approval. The council plans to send advisory comments to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum by October 7. Burgum must consider and respond to them before making a final decision under this preservation review. The public and consulting parties have until September 29 to submit their views.

    A fight over historic views

    The Park Service identified 42 historic properties that could be affected by the project, including six National Historic Landmarks. Its assessment found that the arch would have adverse effects on historic settings and sightlines by adding a prominent structure to the commemorative landscape.

    In the council’s letter, the Park Service said further talks on the existing proposal were unlikely to produce an agreement. It also said alternatives that would avoid or reduce the adverse effects would change the project’s fundamental nature and prevent it from meeting its goals.

    Virginia officials pushed back. In a letter described by ABC News, state preservation official Samantha Henderson argued that the proposed measures would “further highlight how this undertaking has marred rather than added to these spaces.” She said public and local-government concerns had not been directly addressed in a way that showed an effort to reach agreement.

    The administration says the arch would celebrate American triumphs and beautify the capital. Opponents argue that its scale would overwhelm the solemn route between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery. The proposed site is Memorial Circle on Columbia Island, at the Washington, D.C., end of Arlington Memorial Bridge.

    Trump adds a military twist

    Trump has also given the project a new purpose. In a Sunday Truth Social post, he said that “at the strong request of the United States Military” he had agreed to turn the arch into a “top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch.” He said it would hold drones, provide positions for snipers and store sniper ammunition. The Pentagon declined to comment when ABC News asked about the announcement.

    The National Capital Planning Commission approved preliminary site and building plans in July. It requested more information about the arch’s height, traffic effects and aviation-related lighting before final review. That final approval has yet to be granted.

    The preservation dispute now moves from negotiations toward a decision at Interior.

    News Outlets Rush Back to Court After Reporters Turned Away Despite Judge’s Order

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    CNN Headquarters via Wikimedia Commons

    CNN, MS NOW and Politico returned to federal court Thursday morning, saying their journalists were denied entry to the White House just hours after a judge ordered the Trump administration to restore their press credentials.

    In an emergency filing, attorneys for the three outlets asked U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly for an immediate hearing. They said reporters from each organization had been turned away and that Secret Service agents confiscated some journalists’ hard passes that had not already been taken.

    “Defendants have already repeatedly violated the Court’s Order,” the lawyers wrote. Kelly had not made a new finding on compliance when they filed that allegation.

    The lawyers said CNN reporter Betsy Klein, whose pass was confiscated Saturday, was refused entry again Thursday after asking for it back. CNN reported that Klein and a photojournalist were denied access despite multiple attempts, while one CNN producer entered using a pass. Reporters for MS NOW and Politico also said they were blocked.

    The reason for the uneven access was not immediately clear. The White House had not provided an explanation for the Thursday morning denials, according to CNN and Mediaite.

    Xi Visit Raises the Stakes

    The outlets’ attorneys urged quick action because CNN was scheduled to handle television pool coverage for Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House later Thursday. Pool journalists gather material that is shared with other news organizations when space or access is limited.

    “Time is of the essence,” the lawyers wrote. They said they had contacted the administration’s attorneys that morning and asked to call the court together but had received no response at the time of the filing.

    Kelly directed the Justice Department to respond to the request by 12:30 p.m. ET, CNN reported.

    A Temporary Ruling, Then Another Court Fight

    Kelly, whom President Donald Trump appointed to the federal bench during his first term, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order overnight. It directed White House officials and their agents to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” hard passes revoked after Trump announced a ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico last Friday.

    The judge found that the outlets were likely to succeed on their claim that the passes were revoked without adequate due process. His order did not decide the lawsuit’s broader First Amendment claims or permanently settle the White House access dispute.

    Administration lawyers had argued that reporting by the outlets raised national security concerns. Kelly wrote that the record lacked factual support showing that revoking the passes would protect national security while the case proceeds. He also questioned whether that concern had motivated the ban, noting that Trump’s initial announcement focused on what the president called false and negative coverage.

    The new filing asks Kelly to address what happened at the White House gates after his order took effect. Whether the administration deliberately failed to comply, and what relief the judge might order next, remained unresolved Thursday morning.

    World Leader Skips Trump Reception — Meets With Key Rival Instead

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3
    By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

    Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez skipped President Donald Trump’s reception for world leaders in New York on Tuesday, choosing instead to meet with California Gov. Gavin Newsom as tensions between Madrid and Washington continue to simmer.

    Sánchez was invited to the reception, held during the United Nations General Assembly, but his government said the invitation arrived only after his schedule had already been set.

    “He is not going to attend that dinner, but basically because the invitation arrived a few days ago, when the whole trip was already prepared,” Spanish government spokeswoman Elma Saiz said, according to El País.

    The scheduling explanation did little to quiet speculation that the move carried a political message. El País reported that the meetings cited by Sánchez’s team — including sit-downs with Newsom and Apple CEO Tim Cook — were not listed on the prime minister’s public schedule. The newspaper characterized his absence as a political decision, although Sánchez’s office has not described it as a boycott.

    Newsom Meeting Takes Aim At Trump Agenda

    While Trump hosted foreign leaders, Sánchez met with Newsom and signed a memorandum expanding cooperation between Spain and California on clean energy, battery storage, methane reduction, carbon markets and climate resilience.

    Newsom’s office announced the agreement in a sharply worded statement accusing Trump of undermining American alliances and energy security.

    “At a moment of increasing global instability, California will continue building strong relationships with partners around the globe to build a cleaner, more prosperous, more secure future,” Newsom said.

    The Democratic governor has emerged as one of Trump’s most visible political adversaries and is frequently discussed as a possible 2028 presidential contender. His office used the New York meeting to contrast California’s climate policies with the Trump administration’s approach to energy and the war in Iran.

    Sánchez Blasts Trump’s U.N. Speech

    Sánchez also criticized Trump’s address to the General Assembly, calling it “very ideological” and “not backed and supported by facts and data” during an appearance on Jon Stewart’s The Weekly Show podcast, according to EFE.

    “When he speaks about climate change, or the war in Iran, or the things that are going on in the Middle East, his political positions are not, let’s say, largely supported by many countries worldwide,” Sánchez said.

    Trump used his speech to defend his administration’s Iran policy, challenge international climate policies and press other nations to put their own interests first. Sánchez, by contrast, used his U.N. appearances to call for broader multilateral cooperation and defend international institutions, according to Spain’s official government account.

    The two leaders were already at odds over NATO spending. Trump blasted Spain in 2025 after Sánchez resisted the alliance’s new defense-spending target, accusing Madrid of seeking a “free ride” and warning that Spain could pay more in trade negotiations, Fox Business reported.

    Their relationship deteriorated further over the Iran war, which Sánchez has publicly opposed.

    Sánchez also skipped Trump’s U.N. reception last year, when Spain’s King Felipe VI led the country’s delegation. He had attended receptions hosted by President Joe Biden in 2022 and 2023, according to El País.

    This time, the contrast was difficult to miss: Sánchez passed on Trump’s gathering, criticized the president’s speech and spent part of his evening signing a climate agreement with a Democrat who has built a national profile by confronting the White House.

    GOP Senator Calls For Trump Jr., Hunter Biden Subpoenas

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0

    Republican Sen. John Curtis of Utah is calling for a sweeping congressional investigation into the business dealings of Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden, urging Senate leaders to subpoena both presidential sons for testimony.

    In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Curtis asked the panel to examine whether relatives of presidents have used their family connections for private financial gain, favorable treatment or access.

    The request puts a Republican senator at the center of a politically explosive dispute just weeks before the midterm elections. While GOP lawmakers have spent years scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, Curtis is arguing that the same standard must apply to the family of a Republican president.

    Curtis wrote that the concern should transcend whichever party controls the White House.

    Curtis said the proposed inquiry should cover both men’s dealings with foreign individuals and entities, gifts and other benefits they received, and any occasions when their relationship to a president was used—or understood—to carry value.

    Curtis Flags Foreign Deals And Lavish Gift

    The Utah senator cited Hunter Biden’s business relationships in China and Ukraine while Joe Biden was in or seeking public office. Hunter Biden has repeatedly denied involving his father in his business dealings.

    House Republicans previously conducted a multiyear investigation into the Biden family’s foreign financial relationships. Their 2024 impeachment inquiry report accused Joe Biden of benefiting from an influence-peddling operation. Biden and congressional Democrats rejected those conclusions, and the House did not vote to impeach him.

    Curtis also pointed to recent questions surrounding Trump Jr.’s financial interests, including cryptocurrency ventures, international real estate activity, defense-related investments and ties to prediction-market companies affected by federal regulation.

    His letter followed a ProPublica report that Russian businessman Umar Kremlev helped pay for two nights of festivities connected to Trump Jr.’s May wedding in the Bahamas. The outlet reported that Kremlev covered hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses, including the rental of a private island and a fireworks display.

    Kremlev leads the International Boxing Association and has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. ProPublica reported that he had accompanied a group traveling with Putin in China shortly before the wedding celebrations.

    Trump Jr. and his wife, Bettina, confirmed Kremlev hosted two nights of celebrations but described the arrangement as a generous gift from a friend. They said efforts to portray the gift as politically motivated were unfair.

    President Trump later said his son would repay Kremlev and defended the arrangement as permissible, according to The New York Post.

    Curtis nevertheless warned that relationships between presidential relatives and foreign business figures can create the appearance—or expectation—of favorable treatment and potentially expose national security vulnerabilities.

    One Standard For Both Parties

    Curtis framed his request as a test of whether Congress is willing to apply its oversight authority consistently.

    He argued that the country should not accept different standards for Republican and Democratic presidential families.

    The senator said an investigation should establish the facts, determine whether ethics, disclosure or anti-corruption laws apply, and consider reforms aimed at preventing presidential connections from becoming tools for private enrichment.

    Curtis did not accuse either Trump Jr. or Hunter Biden of a specific crime in the letter. His request now leaves Grassley and Durbin to decide whether the Judiciary Committee will pursue an investigation or issue subpoenas.

    “Congress has an obligation to pursue credible concerns wherever they lead and without regard to party,” Curtis wrote.

    Former Fox Producer Found Dead In Florida Home

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    Former Fox Business producer Jennifer Eckhart has been found dead at her Florida home, bringing a tragic end to the life of a media professional whose explosive allegations against former Fox News host Ed Henry drew national attention.

    Eckhart was 36.

    TMZ reported that Eckhart was found inside her Hobe Sound home after a heavy police presence was seen outside the property over the weekend. A representative for the Martin County Medical Examiner’s Office confirmed her death to the outlet, while law-enforcement sources said the case had been ruled a suicide.

    Martin County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Christine Christofek separately said Eckhart appeared to have died by suicide, according to The New York Post. Authorities did not immediately release further details.

    Eckhart previously worked as an associate producer at Fox Business before becoming widely known in 2020, when she filed a lawsuit accusing Henry of sexually assaulting and raping her while they both worked at the network.

    The lawsuit alleged Henry used his position and their age difference to manipulate and control Eckhart, who was 24 when the alleged conduct began. It further accused him of demanding that she become his “sex slave” and threatening punishment or retaliation if she refused his sexual demands.

    Henry denied the allegations. His attorney maintained that the relationship was consensual and that Eckhart initiated it.

    Fox News fired Henry in July 2020 after receiving Eckhart’s complaint and conducting an internal investigation. The network said at the time that senior management terminated him within days of learning of the allegations.

    Eckhart later described the fear she said she experienced while working at Fox.

    “I was paralyzed by fear,” she told CBS News in a 2020 interview.

    “I don’t know how you can continue to cultivate and foster an environment that rewards sexual predators consistently year after year,” she added.

    The legal fight continued for years. Eckhart ultimately settled her claims against Henry before trial. The terms were not publicly disclosed.

    A federal judge separately granted Fox News summary judgment in March 2025, dismissing Eckhart’s claims against the network. Mediaite reported that the judge also dismissed a revenge-porn claim against Henry while allowing several other claims against him to proceed at that stage of the case.

    After leaving Fox, Eckhart launched the REINVENTED podcast, which featured people from business, sports and entertainment discussing how they had overcome adversity. She also became an advocate for trauma survivors.

    Trump Responds As Media Giants Take White House Ban To Court

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    4

    President Donald Trump is defending his decision to bar three major news organizations from the White House as the dispute moves to federal court.

    CNN, MS NOW and Politico announced Monday that they were filing suit in Washington, D.C., after their reporters were blocked from the White House and their press credentials were deactivated over the weekend. The outlets argue that the administration retaliated against them for coverage it disliked, violating the First Amendment and their Fifth Amendment right to due process.

    Trump rejected that charge Monday, portraying the restrictions as a response to deliberately false reporting rather than an attack on press freedom.

    “The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He said the administration was instead confronting what he called “FAKE NEWS” and described it as a threat to national security.

    The president first announced the ban Friday, accusing the three outlets of repeatedly publishing “FICTION and LIES” about him, his administration and the country. He also warned that other news organizations could face similar treatment.

    When reporters pressed him on the decision, Trump made clear that the outlets were no longer welcome inside the White House complex.

    “I don’t think somebody should be allowed to come and write fake stories,” Trump said, according to CBS News. “I don’t have to let them into … the people’s house.”

    Outlets Demand Immediate Access

    The three news organizations said they notified the administration Monday that they would ask a federal court to restore their access immediately while the larger case proceeds.

    “There could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment,” the outlets argued in a court motion cited by CBS News.

    In a joint statement, CNN, MS NOW and Politico said the government cannot decide what news organizations may report or publish. They warned that leaving the ban unchallenged would threaten press freedom and the public’s access to independent reporting.

    The dispute moved quickly after Trump’s Friday announcement. MS NOW correspondent Akayla Gardner and CNN reporter Betsy Klein said White House security personnel turned them away Saturday after their badges had been disabled, The Daily Wire reported.

    CNN was also removed from its scheduled television pool duties for Trump’s Monday travel, according to The Wall Street Journal.

    The White House Correspondents’ Association also condemned the move. Its president, Fox News correspondent Jacqui Heinrich, said constitutional press protections do not depend on whether a president approves of an outlet’s coverage or questions.

    A New Court Fight Over Press Access

    The showdown echoes an earlier battle between Trump and CNN. During his first term, the White House revoked reporter Jim Acosta’s credential following a contentious press conference. A federal judge ordered the credential restored, concluding that the administration had failed to provide the process required before taking it away.

    This case could test the limits of presidential control over press access even more directly because the new policy reportedly blocks entire news organizations from areas generally open to credentialed White House journalists.

    That distinction could matter. In separate litigation over narrower restrictions on access to highly limited spaces such as the Oval Office and Air Force One, an appeals court allowed some administration limits to remain in place. But the judges also said the White House may not exclude journalists from spaces generally open to the press because of their viewpoint, CBS News reported.

    The new lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order, setting up a fast-moving constitutional fight over how far a president may go in deciding which news organizations get through the White House gates.

    Report: Vance Gave Clinton Camp A Warning About Trump

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1
    Hillary Clinton via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Vice President JD Vance reportedly opened a private channel to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016, urging her team to change course in the Midwest as Donald Trump closed in on the White House.

    The previously unreported episode adds a striking new chapter to Vance’s well-known evolution from a fierce Trump critic into the president’s running mate and one of the most prominent figures in the MAGA movement.

    According to a new Vanity Fair profile by Chris Whipple, Vance repeatedly asked an intermediary connected to Clinton’s campaign to put him in touch with Jake Sullivan, who was serving as one of Clinton’s senior policy advisers.

    The intermediary recalled Vance saying, “I hate Hillary. But I hate Trump more.”

    A Midwestern Warning Clinton Did Not Heed

    Vance reportedly believed Clinton was in danger of losing the industrial Midwest and wanted her to make an urgent appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

    The source told Vanity Fair that Vance wanted Clinton to spend less time campaigning with celebrities and more time confronting the anger surrounding her 2002 vote to authorize military force in Iraq. His argument centered on working-class communities that had sent family members to war and felt forgotten by national leaders.

    Vanity Fair reported that Vance eventually spoke directly with Sullivan roughly six weeks before Election Day.

    A second source close to Sullivan confirmed that a conversation occurred but offered a narrower recollection. That person did not remember Vance laying out a broader strategy for the so-called Blue Wall states. The source did recall Vance pressing Clinton’s team to repair the damage from her “basket of deplorables” remark about Trump supporters and warning that she needed to sharpen her focus.

    Clinton ultimately lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—three states Democrats had carried in every presidential election since at least 1992. Trump captured all three by narrow margins, breaking through the Democratic firewall and winning the presidency.

    Vance’s Office Pushes Back

    Vance spokesman Taylor Van Kirk disputed Vanity Fair’s description of the outreach.

    Van Kirk said Vance did not work for either campaign and was encouraging politicians in both parties to pay attention to working-class communities like his hometown of Middletown, Ohio. The spokesperson said the vice president’s office “100 percent reject[s]” the suggestion that his purpose was to help Clinton win.

    The report does not claim that Vance formally joined Clinton’s campaign or held any official role. Its central allegation is that he privately delivered political advice to a senior Clinton adviser because he wanted Trump defeated—a characterization his office denies.

    From Never Trump To Trump’s No. 2

    Vance’s opposition to Trump in 2016 was never a secret. While promoting his bestselling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, he publicly called himself a “Never Trump guy,” described Trump as unfit for office and ultimately voted for independent conservative Evan McMullin rather than Trump or Clinton.

    His position changed in the years that followed. As Vance entered the 2022 Ohio Senate race, he apologized for his earlier attacks and aligned himself with Trump’s political movement. Trump endorsed him in a crowded Republican primary, Vance won the Senate seat, and Trump selected him as his running mate in 2024.

    The new account is especially notable because Vance’s reported advice identified the very weakness that helped decide the 2016 election: Clinton’s failure to hold key Midwestern states. It also reveals just how far the future vice president may have been willing to go at the time to stop the man whose administration he now helps lead.

    Still, the most explosive interpretation remains contested. Vanity Fair’s sources portray Vance as trying to help Clinton defeat Trump. Vance’s team portrays the conversation as a bipartisan plea for Washington to stop ignoring working-class America.

    Vanity Fair’s account, including confirmation from a second source that Vance and Sullivan spoke, offers the clearest description yet of the distance between Vance’s 2016 politics and his role in the Trump White House today.

    123...149Page 1 of 149
    © Great America News Desk 2022