President Donald J. Trump visits the El Arepazo Doral restaurant, Monday, March 9, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)
A House Democrat is once again moving to impeach President Donald Trump, reviving a fight that has repeatedly failed to gain traction even within his own party.
Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) introduced new articles of impeachment Monday accusing Trump of committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” over his administration’s immigration enforcement policies, according to The Hill.
Green’s resolution takes particular aim at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), accusing Trump of operating the agencies as “vicious, quota-driven, unaccountable paramilitary police forces.”
The resolution alleges the Trump administration has violated constitutional protections involving free speech, privacy, due process and equal protection through its immigration crackdown.
Green has tried this before — repeatedly.
Last year, the Texas Democrat introduced an article of impeachment accusing Trump of bypassing Congress when the U.S. launched strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. When Green forced the issue to the House floor, lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected the effort in a 344-79 vote, with most Democrats joining Republicans to shut it down, The Hill reported.
Green has been pushing to impeach Trump since his first administration, becoming the first Democrat to force impeachment articles onto the House floor during Trump’s first term.
His latest effort comes with an added political wrinkle: Green is already on his way out of Congress. He lost the Democratic primary runoff for Texas’ 18th Congressional District to Rep. Christian Menefee in May.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Iranian state television aired a sinister propaganda video threatening Barron Trump, claiming the regime is tracking President Donald Trump’s youngest son and invoking an alleged $10 million reward for targeting him.
The roughly three-minute segment aired on Iran’s Channel 3 under a title translated by Euronews as “Where and how should we kill Barron Trump?” The title appeared in blood-red lettering as the video displayed surveillance-style graphics and purported information about the 20-year-old’s movements, education and online activity.
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran’s regime has placed a $10 million bounty on Barron Trump.
Following the release of an IRGC-linked video tracking Melania Trump, IRGC media and State TV channel 3 have now leaked confidential location and movement logs for Barron Trump, declaring him within striking… pic.twitter.com/H4Zk3flXum
The broadcast claimed Barron is “fully monitored” and suggested its creators had identified accounts he uses for gaming and social media. It also displayed people and locations allegedly connected to him while depicting attempts to penetrate layers of Secret Service protection, according to Iran International.
None of those operational claims has been independently verified. Iran International reported that the segment relied heavily on dramatized graphics and offered no evidence that anyone associated with Tehran had successfully reached Barron or breached his security.
Still, the decision to broadcast an assassination fantasy involving the president’s son on state television marked a disturbing escalation in Iran’s threats against the Trump family.
Toward the end of the segment, the narrator reportedly declared that “many would be willing” to accept a $10 million reward connected to targeting Barron.
“This is just the beginning,” the video warned. “Barron Trump, wait for us.”
The broadcast followed a similar propaganda campaign targeting first lady Melania Trump. In July, Iran’s IRGC-linked Tasnim News Agency circulated a video titled “How to Kill Melania Trump,” which purported to reveal her movements and security routes, Mediaite reported.
Iranian media has also circulated material targeting Trump himself, including purported details about his motorcade routes and possible security vulnerabilities.
Although Tehran’s latest video may be propaganda, Iran has previously been accused of moving beyond rhetoric and attempting to organize assassinations on American soil.
In 2024, the Justice Department charged alleged IRGC asset Farhad Shakeri after authorities said the Iranian regime tasked him with developing a plan to assassinate Trump. Shakeri allegedly operated a network of criminal associates used to conduct surveillance and arrange attacks against targets inside the United States.
The IRGC has publicly sought revenge for Trump’s 2020 drone strike that killed Iranian Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, according to the Justice Department.
Federal prosecutors separately charged an IRGC member in 2022 with attempting to pay $300,000 for the assassination of former Trump national security adviser John Bolton in Washington or Maryland.
The danger surrounding Trump became especially visible last month when security officials secretly altered the president’s aircraft movements as he departed Turkey. CBS News reported that the extraordinary precautions followed intelligence concerning a credible threat from Iran and its proxies.
The latest threat comes as the war with Iran continues and the Trump administration prepares another round of punishing economic measures against Tehran.
Trump declared Monday that Iran was “completely collapsing,” while Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the coming sanctions campaign as an “economic D-Day” and “the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary.”
By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Karoline Leavitt, CC BY-SA 2.0,
Alina Habba just blew up the White House press secretary sweepstakes.
The longtime Trump ally and former personal attorney publicly rejected speculation that she could replace outgoing press secretary Karoline Leavitt, insisting that she is not chasing another job in the administration.
“Flattered by the Kalshi odds, but I’m not in the running for any job,” Habba wrote Wednesday on X, according to Fox News Digital.
Habba also took a swipe at the unnamed sources driving the chatter, saying she would like them to tell her if she was getting a new post before declaring: “Fake news remains the undefeated champ.”
The denial landed with immediate force. Habba had been sitting atop the Kalshi prediction market with a 35% chance of getting the job, Fox News reported. After her post, CNN conservative commentator Scott Jennings moved ahead of her in the betting.
But those odds measure traders’ expectations—not the White House’s intentions. President Donald Trump has not publicly identified a favorite, and the administration has not announced a successor.
A Sudden Vacancy at the Podium
Leavitt, 28, is scheduled to leave the White House at the end of August after recently returning from maternity leave. She said the demands of the job made it impossible to be the mother she wanted to be to her two young children, calling her departure a “bittersweet decision.”
Trump said Leavitt would remain one of his top outside advisers and continue working with Republicans ahead of the November midterm elections.
Her exit creates a difficult opening at one of the most visible—and punishing—jobs in Washington. Leavitt became the youngest White House press secretary in history when she took the podium at 27 and quickly emerged as one of Trump’s most aggressive defenders.
Trump senior political adviser James Blair told Fox News that Leavitt would be a “really hard act to follow” and warned that her successor would operate under a “microscope” as the fight for Congress intensifies.
Why Habba Looked Like a Contender
Habba’s name made sense on paper. She became nationally known while defending Trump through his civil and criminal legal battles, then served as a high-profile campaign surrogate during his 2024 run.
She later worked as a counselor to the president and served as New Jersey’s interim U.S. attorney before moving into her current role as senior adviser to the attorney general for U.S. attorneys.
She had also been floated for the press secretary job after Trump’s 2024 victory. At the time, Habba said she was flattered but believed her talents belonged elsewhere. Her latest denial was even sharper: She said she was not in the running for any job.
Scott Jennings Moves Into the Spotlight
With Habba batting down the story, the focus is now shifting to Jennings—a combative Trump defender who regularly spars with liberal panelists on CNN.
Jennings has not offered the same clean rejection. When CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins asked whether he had heard from the White House, he joked that taking the job would mean, “I would get to see you every day.” Collins immediately noted that his answer was “not a no,” according to People’s account of the CNN exchange.
Jennings later called Leavitt one of the best press secretaries in decades but stopped short of confirming any talks.
The former George W. Bush aide has also advised longtime Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell and worked on multiple presidential campaigns. Trump has praised Jennings publicly and promoted his recent book, Fox News reported.
The Daily Beast has cited unnamed sources describing Jennings as a leading contender. A later report from the outlet said he met with White House chief of staff Susie Wiles about the role before Leavitt announced her departure, while also reporting that Trump has indicated a preference for a woman. Neither claim has been confirmed publicly by the White House.
The Rest of Trump’s Shortlist—If There Is One
White House principal deputy press secretary Anna Kelly is the clearest internal contender. She already sits directly beneath Leavitt in the press operation and handled television appearances during Leavitt’s maternity leave.
Other names floated in Fox News and TIME include White House communications director Steven Cheung, former Trump communications official Taylor Budowich, conservative podcaster and former administration spokeswoman Katie Miller, former DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin and Breitbart Washington bureau chief Matthew Boyle.
There may not be an immediate winner at all. The Independent, citing an unnamed White House official, reported that the administration could rely on a rotating cast of senior officials instead of quickly installing a permanent replacement. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took turns briefing reporters during Leavitt’s maternity leave.
Former Trump press secretary Sean Spicer told Fox News the eventual choice would need a “strong existing relationship” with Trump—a reminder that résumés and betting markets matter less than presidential trust.
Habba says she was never in the race. Jennings is not closing the door. And with the midterms approaching, Trump now has to decide who gets the next turn at the most combative podium in politics.
Two miniature vodka bottles, strips of gray cloth, a folding knife—and a plan to kill one of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
That is what federal authorities said Riley Jane English brought to Washington before abandoning an assassination plot against Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and surrendering to police.
English, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman, was sentenced Tuesday to 73 months—six years and one month—in federal prison.
The sentence was two years below the bottom of the recommended range and four years shorter than the 121-month term sought by federal prosecutors.
Federal records identify the defendant as Ryan Michael English, while defense filings use the name Riley Jane English.
English pleaded guilty March 26 to one count of unlawful receipt, possession or transfer of a firearm and one count of carrying a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device on Capitol grounds.
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, also imposed three years of supervised release.
“The offense is very serious,” Contreras said at the sentencing, according to Fox News.
But the judge concluded that the federal sentencing range of 97 to 121 months was too severe.
Contreras noted that no one was injured, the makeshift firebombs probably would not have ignited and English surrendered before getting close to Bessent. The judge called the plan “basically impossible to succeed.”
The probation department had recommended a five-year prison term. English has already spent roughly 20 months in custody and will receive credit for that time.
English’s bizarre path to the Capitol began in South Deerfield, Massachusetts, on Jan. 26, 2025.
According to Roll Call, English traveled without a cellphone and used a road atlas for navigation. The original plans reportedly included killing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth or House Speaker Mike Johnson and possibly burning down the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The target changed after English stopped at a library in Chevy Chase, Maryland, and learned that Bessent was facing a Senate confirmation vote.
A clip of Bessent discussing the federal minimum wage allegedly pushed English over the edge.
“He said it with a smile on his face and that got under my skin,” English later told investigators, according to court records cited by Fox News.
English reportedly went to Capitol Hill planning to throw the Molotov cocktails at Bessent’s feet or stab the Treasury nominee if an opportunity emerged.
But the plan began unraveling almost immediately.
The security presence was far greater than English expected. There were also concerns that bystanders, including people who had nothing to do with the intended targets, could be injured.
At approximately 3:12 p.m. on Jan. 27, English approached a Capitol Police officer near the building’s South Door.
“I’d like to turn myself in,” English said.
Officers searched English and recovered a folding knife, a green lighter and two improvised incendiary devices from the defendant’s jacket.
The devices were made from 50-milliliter Absolut vodka bottles. Each had a strip of gray cloth attached to the top and soaked in alcohol-based hand sanitizer, according to the Justice Department.
Police later searched English’s car, parked near Independence Avenue, and found a 750-milliliter bottle of 100-proof vodka and a gray sweatshirt with fabric cut from its sleeves.
When investigators asked English to explain the intended target, the answer was unmistakable.
“I was going to kill Scott Bessent,” English said.
Investigators also found a handwritten note referring to “nazis” killing “my sisters” and apologizing for “lying and plotting.”
English told investigators that the plot had been influenced in part by Luigi Mangione, the suspect accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. But English also said Mangione’s imprisonment prompted second thoughts about throwing away a life for a brief act of vengeance.
At sentencing, English apologized for causing fear and blamed an unstable mental state.
“I never wanted to hurt anyone,” English told Contreras, according to Fox News.
The judge said English’s physical and mental-health problems had been worsened by drug use but noted the defendant’s progress toward sobriety while in custody.
English’s attorneys asked that the defendant be sent to a women’s federal prison. Contreras said he would forward that request to the Bureau of Prisons, which will ultimately determine where English serves the sentence.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro responded to the sentence by warning that threats against government officials would bring serious consequences.
“My office will not tolerate attempts to intimidate or harm public officials,” Pirro said in the DOJ announcement.
“The defendant is now a convicted felon,” she added, “and is headed where he belongs: prison.”
The accused assassin of conservative activist Charlie Kirk may have hit his alleged target, but prosecutors say his history of misses could help keep the death penalty on the table.
Tyler Robinson, 23, allegedly “seldom hit the bullseye and sometimes missed the target altogether” while practicing with the rifle authorities believe was used to kill Kirk, Utah prosecutors said in a court filing made public Tuesday.
The claim strikes directly at the defense’s bid to knock out the aggravating factor that could make Robinson eligible for execution if he is convicted.
Robinson’s attorneys argue that the fatal bullet traveled above the crowd at Utah Valley University rather than through it. Only one round was fired, Kirk was the only person struck and no bystanders were wounded, the defense noted.
But prosecutors say that argument ignores the risk Robinson allegedly knew he was taking when he fired a high-powered rifle from the roof of the campus’s Losee Center toward a courtyard packed with thousands of people.
Evidence recovered from Robinson’s southern Utah home allegedly included targets he had used to practice with his grandfather’s rifle, according to Fox News Digital and KSL’s coverage of the filing.
Those targets, prosecutors contend, show Robinson knew he was capable of missing — and that a miss from the rooftop could have sent a bullet into the crowd or struck someone standing near Kirk.
The state also pointed to evidence that the alleged gunman had to race across the roof, reassemble the rifle, get into position and fire within roughly one minute. He allegedly loaded four cartridges before taking the shot.
Taken together, prosecutors say, Robinson’s hurried setup, extra ammunition and spotty practice record support a reasonable inference that he understood the danger to people other than Kirk.
Several spectators were allegedly positioned between the rooftop and Kirk, while others were gathered close to the Turning Point USA founder onstage, prosecutors wrote.
Robinson’s lawyers see the scene very differently.
In a 41-page defense brief, they described an open-air shooting with a “clear line of sight.” They argued that the bullet struck its intended target, no second round was chambered and no one else was directly behind or beside Kirk in the bullet’s path.
The defense maintains that the state has shown only that harm to a bystander was possible — not that Robinson knowingly created the high probability of another death required to sustain the aggravator.
That distinction could decide whether Robinson faces a possible death sentence.
Utah’s aggravated-murder statute allows prosecutors to rely on evidence that a defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to someone other than the person killed. Robinson’s lawyers want Judge Tony Graf Jr. to strike that aggravating circumstance before trial, which would remove capital punishment as a possible sentence.
At this stage, however, prosecutors need only establish probable cause to send the charges to trial. They argue that Graf must draw reasonable inferences in the state’s favor rather than weigh competing interpretations as a jury would.
Prosecutors went further in their latest filing, accusing Robinson’s attorneys of ignoring controlling case law and saying they had “violated their ethical duty of candor to the Court.”
The state is also pressing a separate claim that Kirk was targeted because of his political expression. Prosecutors have cited an allegedly political message engraved on one of the cartridges, as well as messages Robinson allegedly sent about Kirk before surrendering.
Robinson is accused of driving from southern Utah to Orem and fatally shooting Kirk in the neck as the 31-year-old activist answered questions during a Turning Point USA event on Sept. 10, 2025.
Prosecutors allege that Robinson later admitted responsibility to several people and instructed his roommate to delete incriminating messages. He is charged with aggravated murder and six additional crimes but has not yet entered a plea.
The two sides presented evidence during a weeklong preliminary hearing in July and have since traded written arguments over whether the case — and its potential death penalty — should proceed.
Graf is scheduled to hear closing arguments on Sept. 1 before deciding whether Robinson will stand trial on all seven charges.
For Robinson’s defense, the argument is that the fatal shot was precise enough to spare everyone else.
For prosecutors, his battered practice targets tell the more dangerous story.
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
President Donald Trump has selected Dr. Heidi Overton, a senior White House domestic policy adviser and physician, to lead the Food and Drug Administration as the agency confronts battles over vaccines, drug prices, food additives, and abortion medication.
Trump announced the nomination Wednesday, describing Overton as a trusted problem-solver who would accelerate medical innovation, lower prescription costs, and advance Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.
Overton currently serves as deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, where she has helped formulate and promote several of the administration’s most consequential health initiatives.
BREAKING: President Trump picks Dr. Heidi Overton, a top White House aide, to lead the Food and Drug Administration. https://t.co/fGVJ7TNQjt
If confirmed by the Senate, she would succeed Dr. Marty Makary, who left the agency in May after a turbulent tenure marked by internal disputes and disagreements over the direction of federal health policy.
Kyle Diamantas, who previously led the FDA’s Human Foods Program, is serving as acting commissioner.
A Physician With Deep White House Ties
Overton is a board-certified physician in public health and general preventive medicine. She earned her medical degree from the University of New Mexico School of Medicine and a doctorate in clinical investigation from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
She previously trained as a general surgery resident at Johns Hopkins and advocated for greater price and quality transparency in health care.
During medical school, then-New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez appointed Overton to the University of New Mexico Board of Regents, where she held voting and fiduciary responsibility for the university and its health system.
Overton first entered the Trump White House as a fellow in 2019, working in the Office of American Innovation and on the Domestic Policy Council. Between Trump’s terms, she served as chief policy officer at the America First Policy Institute and helped lead its Center for a Healthy America.
Her biography from the conservative organization emphasizes her work on health-care transparency, fentanyl, public health and policies designed to give patients greater control over medical decisions.
The appointment would place a committed administration loyalist at the head of an agency that regulates products representing roughly one-fifth of American consumer spending.
Overton Helped Shape Trump’s Health Agenda
Overton has appeared alongside Trump during major health policy announcements, including the administration’s efforts to negotiate “most favored nation” agreements with drug companies. The policy seeks to tie American prescription prices to the lower prices paid in other developed countries.
She was also involved in Trump’s controversial effort to revise the childhood vaccination schedule and separate the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine into three individual shots.
Major medical organizations have generally supported the combined MMR vaccine, which has been used for decades and reduces the number of clinical visits and injections required for full immunization. Critics fear that splitting the vaccine could create delays and lower vaccination rates.
Overton’s role in the policy is likely to become a focus of her Senate confirmation hearing, particularly as lawmakers question how she would handle pressure from Kennedy and other administration figures skeptical of established federal vaccine recommendations.
Trump praised Overton as a “rockstar” who would advance medical cures, innovation and lower drug prices.
Kennedy also supports the nomination, giving Overton an important ally inside the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA.
Difficult Issues Await New Commissioner
The next FDA commissioner will inherit an unusually difficult collection of unfinished projects.
The agency continues to face pressure over its regulation of COVID-19 vaccines and other immunizations, including questions about which populations should receive updated shots and what evidence manufacturers must provide.
Medication abortion will present another immediate test. Pro-life organizations want the FDA to impose tighter restrictions on mifepristone, including limits on prescriptions issued through telehealth and pills delivered through the mail.
Overton has previously used the term “teleabortion” when discussing remote access to abortion medication, drawing concern from abortion-rights organizations that expect her to revisit the drug’s rules.
The FDA must also determine how aggressively it will regulate ultraprocessed foods, chemical additives, and synthetic dyes. Those issues are central to Kennedy’s MAHA movement but can conflict with the deregulatory approach traditionally favored by Republican lawmakers and industry groups.
Other pending questions involve flavored electronic cigarettes, peptide treatments, psychedelics, antidepressant warnings, and efforts to shorten the approval process for new drugs.
Overton would therefore have to balance three competing forces: Trump’s desire for faster approvals and lower prices, Kennedy’s campaign against corporate influence in food and medicine, and Republican demands for reduced federal regulation.
Management Experience Likely to Draw Scrutiny
Overton’s supporters point to her medical education, policy background, and proximity to presidential decision-making. They argue that she understands Trump’s priorities and can coordinate more effectively with the White House than an outside nominee.
Critics are expected to focus on her limited experience running an organization comparable to the FDA.
The agency employs thousands of scientists, physicians, inspectors, lawyers, and regulatory specialists. It oversees prescription drugs, medical devices, vaccines, tobacco products, much of the nation’s food supply, and other consumer goods.
Axios reported before her selection that some health policy observers worried Overton’s nomination could unsettle FDA career employees and pharmaceutical investors, while other potential candidates possessed more direct executive management experience.
The criticism will likely feature prominently when she appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Makary, Overton’s predecessor and a former Johns Hopkins colleague, was confirmed in March 2025 by a 56-44 Senate vote. Overton will seek confirmation from a chamber still controlled by Republicans but divided over the administration’s vaccine policies.
Her nomination signals that Trump wants the FDA led by someone already embedded in his White House rather than an agency insider or pharmaceutical executive.
If the Senate agrees, Overton will take control of one of the federal government’s most powerful scientific agencies — and become responsible for turning the administration’s sprawling health agenda into enforceable policy.
Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff is no longer trading polite disagreements with President Donald Trump. He is going straight for the throat—and looking increasingly presidential while doing it.
Appearing Tuesday alongside Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Ossoff branded Trump a “draft-dodging, crook president” who had recklessly plunged the country into war.
The Georgia Democrat accused Trump of trying to imprison Kelly, a former Navy captain and astronaut whom Ossoff described as embodying “American heroism.” The comments marked the sharpest escalation yet in a feud that moved from foreign policy to deeply personal attacks in only a matter of days.
It also raised an unavoidable question: Is Ossoff merely fighting for another Senate term—or quietly auditioning for the White House?
Ossoff Takes the Gloves Off
The clash began Sunday, when Ossoff delivered a blistering speech attacking Trump’s handling of the U.S.-Israel war with Iran.
Ossoff accused the president of neglecting deployed service members, draining American military resources and focusing instead on golfing, stock trading and his White House ballroom.
“He doesn’t want to do the job,” Ossoff said before claiming Trump would rather “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie”—an apparent reference to Natalie Harp, the president’s executive assistant.
Harp’s inclusion made the attack intensely personal. She is one of Trump’s most trusted aides, frequently accompanying him and helping manage his social media output, according to CBS News.
The White House erupted.
When reporters asked Trump about Ossoff’s remarks, the president responded by calling the senator a “Pee-wee Herman look-alike.” White House communications director Steven Cheung piled on, describing Ossoff as a “radical, extremist Dumocrat,” while other administration officials launched their own attacks.
Ossoff did not retreat. He escalated.
During Tuesday’s appearance with Kelly and Giffords, he tied Trump’s war leadership to the president’s previous demand that Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers be arrested over a video reminding military personnel that they must refuse unlawful orders.
Trump called that video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” The episode drew widespread condemnation, while military-law experts noted that service members are obligated to reject illegal commands, according to The Associated Press.
For Ossoff, the contrast was irresistible: a president who avoided military service attacking a former Navy combat pilot and astronaut.
A Senate Campaign With a National Audience
The substance matters. But so does the delivery.
Ossoff’s speeches are increasingly built for national consumption: sharp lines, cinematic staging and short clips designed to explode across social media. His rallies have become what The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called “viral spectacles,” generating the kind of attention normally reserved for politicians with ambitions beyond the Senate.
His message is also bigger than Georgia.
Ossoff is not simply arguing that Republican challenger Mike Collins would be a bad senator. He is presenting himself as a national check on Trump—someone willing to confront the president over war, corruption, political intimidation and alleged self-dealing.
That is exactly the kind of political identity a future presidential candidate needs.
A White House campaign rarely begins with a formal announcement. It begins with a brand, a donor network and a proof of concept. Ossoff is building all three.
He entered the general election with more than $42 million in cash after raising roughly $20 million during the second quarter. Nearly 90% of his campaign’s contributions during that period were $100 or less, the campaign told the AJC.
That combination—a massive war chest and a broad small-dollar fundraising base—could be transferred quickly into a future national operation.
Then there is Georgia itself.
Ossoff is the only Democratic Senate incumbent running this year in a state Trump carried in 2024. Winning there requires more than exciting Democratic voters. It requires holding suburban swing voters and persuading at least some Republicans to split their tickets.
Ossoff has already secured endorsements from former Republican Sen. Jeff Flake and two Republican Georgia mayors. Valdosta Mayor Scott James Matheson and Tifton Mayor Julie Smith cited Ossoff’s constituent service and work securing resources for their communities when they crossed party lines to endorse him, according to the AJC.
If Ossoff can attack Trump this aggressively while winning decisively in a state Trump carried, Democrats searching for a post-Trump national strategy will notice.
But Ossoff Says He Is Not Running
There is one major complication in the 2028 theory: Ossoff has repeatedly denied it.
“I have zero interest in running for president in 2028,” he said during an MS NOW interview this week, dismissing the speculation as “2028 fantasy football.”
That denial should not be ignored. Ossoff has a difficult Senate election directly in front of him, and allowing presidential speculation to dominate could make him appear distracted or overly ambitious.
It is also entirely possible that his escalating rhetoric has a simpler purpose. Ossoff wants to energize Democrats, define Collins as inseparable from Trump and turn his Senate election into a referendum on the president.
Still, politicians can build national brands without actively planning presidential campaigns. Intentions also change—especially after a decisive victory, an explosion in fundraising or an unexpected opening in the party.
Ossoff does not need to be secretly assembling a 2028 campaign for this moment to matter. His feud with Trump is demonstrating how he would operate on a national stage: confrontational, polished, media-savvy and willing to make the fight personal.
The Bottom Line
Ossoff’s immediate target is Mike Collins. But Trump has become his chosen opponent.
That strategy could help the senator win reelection by turning Georgia’s race into a larger battle over the direction of the country. It could also leave Ossoff with something far more valuable after November: a national following, a battle-tested message and proof that he can compete in hostile political territory.
Ossoff may genuinely have “zero interest” in 2028 today but he is running the kind of campaign that could make Democrats very interested in him tomorrow.
President Donald Trump answers questions from members of the media aboard Air Force One en route to Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, for a rally on the economy, Tuesday, December 9, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
ABC is taking President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission to court, accusing the powerful broadcast regulator of using its licensing authority to punish speech the administration does not like.
In a First Amendment lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ABC alleged that the administration has carried out a politically motivated campaign against the network through the FCC.
“Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts,” the lawsuit states, according to Mediaite and Deadline.
The network said the attacks have escalated from public criticism of its journalism and programming to “express demands” that ABC be stripped of broadcast licenses because of its speech.
At the center of the case is an unusual FCC order requiring eight ABC-owned local stations to apply for license renewals years ahead of schedule. The stations serve New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham and Fresno. Their licenses were not otherwise set to expire until between 2028 and 2031.
ABC is seeking a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions to stop the accelerated review, The Wall Street Journal reported. The FCC did not immediately comment on the new lawsuit, according to the Journal.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has rejected claims that the review is punishment for ABC’s programming. He has said it stems from a previously opened investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices and whether the company complied with federal employment rules.
ABC argues that explanation is a pretext.
The legal showdown follows months of escalating pressure on the network. In February, Carr confirmed that the FCC had begun enforcement proceedings involving The View and the federal equal-time rule after the program featured political candidates. Carr questioned whether the daytime show qualifies for the rule’s exemption for bona fide news programs.
Then in April, the FCC ordered the eight ABC stations into early renewal proceedings one day after Trump and first lady Melania Trump called for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel to be fired over an “expectant widow” joke. Carr denied that the timing was retaliatory, saying the action was tied to the agency’s DEI investigation and Disney’s response to document requests, The Guardian reported.
The dispute intensified again in July. After ABC declined to preempt its prime-time schedule for a Trump address, Carr said that editorial decision would factor into the FCC’s license review, The Desk reported. Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez responded that broadcasters—not the government—decide what news and speeches to carry.
ABC accused the agency of “attempted censorship” in a July filing and warned that the stakes extend far beyond one network.
“The retaliation against ABC is a signal to every media company in the country: accommodate the Administration’s view of what news coverage should look like or pay the price,” the network wrote, according to Mediaite.
The network says its stations easily meet the legal standard for renewal and notes that they have held their licenses for decades while providing local journalism and emergency coverage. ABC also said more than 150,000 comments were filed in the FCC proceeding, with over 95% supporting renewal, TheWrap reported.
A bipartisan group of former FCC chairs, commissioners and senior officials has also urged the agency to end the early review, describing it as unprecedented and warning that it could chill broadcasters nationwide. Conservative organizations, including the Media Research Center and the Center for American Rights, have pushed in the opposite direction, asking the FCC to deny the renewals over alleged bias and discrimination.
Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to challenge the $5 million civil verdict awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll.
In a one-sentence order, the justices denied Trump’s petition for rehearing without explanation. No dissents were publicly noted.
The court had already declined in June to hear Trump’s appeal of the verdict. Monday’s decision leaves that rejection in place and effectively closes another path for the president to contest the judgment.
The justices did not rule on the underlying allegations or explain their reasoning. They simply refused Trump’s extraordinary request to reconsider their earlier decision.
Supreme Court rehearings are exceedingly rare. Under the court’s rules, they are generally reserved for substantial intervening circumstances or other significant grounds that were not previously presented.
Carroll sued Trump after publicly alleging that he assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store during the 1990s. Trump has repeatedly denied her account.
A civil jury later found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. The case was civil, not criminal, and the verdict did not result in a criminal conviction.
Trump’s appeal argued, among other things, that jurors were improperly allowed to hear testimony from other women who had accused him of sexual misconduct.
According to The Hill, Carroll received the $5 million payment, plus interest, last month.
Trump’s attorneys urged the Supreme Court to reconsider while a separate appeal involving Carroll remains before the justices. That case stems from a second trial in which a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million over additional defamatory statements made by Trump.
The president is asserting a presidential-immunity defense in the second case. His lawyers argued that the outcome of that appeal could also affect the first Carroll judgment.
“That is a paradigmatic reason to at least hold a petition,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in their request to the court.
“When a forthcoming or pending case may affect the proper disposition of another petition, the Court may hold the related petition, and later resolve it in light of the lead case,” they added.
The justices were not persuaded to keep the $5 million dispute alive.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team blasted the decision and continued to characterize the Carroll litigation as politically motivated.
“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” the spokesperson said in a statement quoted by The Hill.
“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again,” the spokesperson added.
Although Monday’s order shuts down Trump’s rehearing request in the $5 million case, his challenge to Carroll’s separate $83.3 million judgment remains pending before the Supreme Court.
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
President Donald Trump is throwing his political weight behind Republican Saritha Komatireddy as she tries to unseat New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of his most persistent political and legal adversaries.
In a Truth Social post Friday, Trump called it his “Great Honor” to endorse Komatireddy, whom he described as an “America First Patriot,” and said she had his “Complete and Total Endorsement” in the November election.
Trump also unleashed a blistering attack on James and Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, declaring that New York had “gone to HELL” under their leadership. He branded James a “Complete and Total Disaster” and again accused her of pursuing a politically motivated “WITCH HUNT” against him.
The president said Komatireddy would prioritize law and order, support police and first responders, protect election integrity, combat illegal immigration and defend the Second Amendment if elected.
Komatireddy quickly welcomed the endorsement.
“I was honored to be nominated to be a federal judge by the President in 2020 and I’m honored to receive his endorsement today,” she wrote on X. “I’m working hard to win the support of all New Yorkers and defeat Letitia James this November.”
Trump announced his intent to nominate Komatireddy to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2020, although the Senate did not confirm her nomination. A Harvard College and Harvard Law School graduate, Komatireddy spent more than a decade as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York and later served as chief of staff at the Drug Enforcement Administration. She previously clerked for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Her prosecutorial record includes cases involving terrorism, cybercrime, narcotics trafficking, money laundering and foreign corruption. The Justice Department has credited her for work that helped secure convictions in cases involving an ISIS recruiter and Genaro García Luna, the former Mexican security official convicted of aiding the Sinaloa Cartel.
A Feud Years in the Making
Trump’s endorsement is especially personal because James has made legal action against him a defining part of her public profile.
James campaigned for attorney general in 2018 as an outspoken Trump critic. Her office opened an investigation into the Trump Organization in 2020 after former Trump attorney Michael Cohen testified before Congress about the company’s financial practices. In 2022, James sued Trump, his company and several executives, alleging they had repeatedly inflated asset values on financial statements to secure more favorable terms from banks and insurers.
After a civil trial, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump and other defendants liable and imposed roughly $464.6 million in disgorgement and interest, along with business restrictions and independent oversight of the Trump Organization.
Trump scored a major victory in August 2025 when a state appeals court vacated the entire financial award, concluding that the massive disgorgement order amounted to an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. But the ruling did not erase the underlying judgment: the court otherwise affirmed the case, including findings that Trump and his company had submitted deceptive business records. Both sides moved to continue the fight in New York’s highest court, with Trump seeking to eliminate the remaining penalties and James seeking to restore the financial award.
The feud later widened to include separate mortgage-fraud allegations against James. Federal prosecutors accused her of making false statements connected to a Virginia property, and a grand jury indicted her in October 2025 on bank-fraud and false-statement charges. James denied wrongdoing and described the prosecution as political retaliation.
A federal judge dismissed the indictment the following month after ruling that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed. Two grand juries subsequently declined to return a new indictment. As of August 2026, James is not under indictment, although Trump has continued to call for her prosecution.
An Uphill Fight in Deep-Blue New York
Komatireddy enters the general election with an extensive law-enforcement résumé but a significant name-recognition problem. A Siena University poll released Aug. 12 showed James leading 54% to 36% among likely voters. More than two-thirds of those surveyed said they had either never heard of Komatireddy or did not know enough about her to form an opinion.
Trump’s endorsement could help Komatireddy consolidate Republican support and introduce her to voters across the state. It also ensures that a contest already centered on crime, public integrity and the power of the attorney general’s office will double as another referendum on the Trump-James rivalry.
James, first elected in 2018 and now seeking a third term, remains the favorite. Komatireddy, however, is betting that voters frustrated by public safety concerns and politicized law enforcement will be willing to break with New York’s Democratic establishment.