Politics

Home Politics

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

2
White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch: Vance Responds to Mexican Flag-Waving Protester

Vance departs from his prepared speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech centered on family and national identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans urged to remain united

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convention turns toward November

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

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

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

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

Democrats Prepare Hegseth Investigations If They Win Congress

1
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

Democratic lawmakers are considering hearings, subpoenas, and renewed impeachment proceedings involving Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, but their ability to act would depend on winning at least one chamber in November.

Congressional Democrats are preparing an aggressive campaign of investigations into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth if they win control of Congress in November, according to a new report detailing plans for hearings, document demands, and possible subpoenas.

The proposed inquiries would reportedly examine the war with Iran, allegations involving civilian casualties and the laws of armed conflict, Pentagon contracts, the removal of senior military officers, internal leak investigations, and Hegseth’s handling of sensitive operational information.

Some House Democrats have already moved beyond oversight demands. In April, a group of lawmakers introduced six articles of impeachment against Hegseth, although the effort has little chance of advancing while Republicans control the chamber.

The discussions remain contingent plans, not scheduled proceedings. Democrats would need to capture the House, the Senate, or both in the Nov. 3 elections before they could control committee agendas and pursue the full range of investigative actions under consideration.

Hearings and subpoenas under consideration

Democrats are considering a “blitz” of public hearings and inquiries if they gain congressional power, according to Politico reporting.

Winning the House would allow Democrats to select committee chairmen, schedule hearings, demand documents, and issue subpoenas, subject to House and committee rules. Committees could call Hegseth and other Pentagon officials to testify about military operations, personnel decisions, procurement, and the department’s compliance with congressional oversight requests.

Control of the Senate would provide separate investigative authority through committees including Armed Services, Intelligence, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators would also oversee Pentagon nominations and could use confirmation proceedings to press administration officials for information.

Executive branch officials can assert privileges, challenge congressional demands, negotiate the scope of requests, or fight them in court. Such disputes can continue for months or years, limiting the immediate effect of an investigation.

Existing impeachment articles outline Democrats’ case

Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) introduced articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April with support from several other House Democrats.

According to the seven-page resolution, the articles accuse Hegseth of:

  • Participating in an unauthorized war against Iran and recklessly endangering U.S. service members;
  • Violating the law of armed conflict and permitting attacks that caused civilian casualties;
  • Mishandling sensitive military information;
  • Obstructing congressional oversight;
  • Abusing his authority and politicizing the military; and
  • Engaging in conduct the sponsors contend brought disrepute upon the United States and its armed forces.

The Pentagon dismissed the effort when the articles were introduced.

“This is just another Democrat trying to make headlines as the Department of War decisively and overwhelmingly achieved the Presidents’ objectives in Iran,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said.

“Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and project peace through strength,” Wilson added. “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

Iran and Pentagon leadership take center stage

The Iran war would likely become one of the largest components of any Democratic-led investigation.

The impeachment resolution cites a Feb. 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Iran that killed 168 people. A preliminary U.S. assessment reportedly concluded that American forces were “likely” responsible but did not intentionally target the school and may have struck it by mistake. Any congressional investigation would be expected to examine targeting procedures, intelligence assessments, command decisions, and the administration’s legal justification for military operations.

Democrats also want to examine allegations involving other military strikes and determine whether U.S. forces complied with the law of armed conflict. The Pentagon has disputed accusations that its operations deliberately targeted civilians.

Personnel decisions present another point of conflict. Democrats have criticized Hegseth over the removal of senior officers and what they describe as the politicization of military leadership. The administration has defended personnel changes as necessary to restore accountability, readiness, and a focus on combat effectiveness.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) recently said lawmakers had not received a briefing on a Pentagon investigation into leaks concerning U.S. weapons stockpiles. Crow, a member of both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, accused Hegseth of creating “an environment of fear.”

“Certainly, stopping leaks and protecting classified information is really important, and I would always support that,” Crow said. “The problem is the broader context that Pete Hegseth has created here.”

Pentagon officials said the investigation did not subject every senior military leader to polygraph examinations and that no one failed the tests.

Impeachment would face a much higher barrier

A Democratic House could revive the existing articles, introduce new charges, or conduct hearings before deciding whether to proceed. Impeachment requires only a majority vote in the House.

Removing Hegseth from office would be far more difficult. The Senate would have to hold a trial, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote of senators present. Unless Democrats won an overwhelming Senate majority, removal would require substantial Republican support.

Only two Cabinet officials have been impeached. Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached in 1876 but acquitted by the Senate. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was impeached by the Republican-controlled House in 2024, but the Democratic-controlled Senate dismissed the charges without conducting a full trial.

For that reason, hearings and subpoenas are substantially more plausible than Hegseth’s removal. Democratic control of even one chamber could subject the Pentagon to sustained public scrutiny, but impeachment would remain only the first step in a much more demanding constitutional process.

The November elections will determine whether the plans move from private discussions and minority-party demands to formal congressional investigations. Until then, Democrats can request records and introduce resolutions, but Republicans retain control over whether the House and Senate put Hegseth under the level of scrutiny his critics are promising.

READ NEXT: Iran Quietly Restarts Ballistic Missile Production Underground

Fox Host Praises Trump’s $5K Pledge As Questions Mount Over Cost And Authority

1
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Rachel Campos-Duffy called the president’s proposal “creative and rule-breaking,” but the conditional payments could cost more than $1 trillion, require congressional approval, and far exceed current tariff revenue.

Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy praised President Donald Trump’s promise to send $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans retain control of Congress, calling the proposal “creative and rule-breaking.”

Speaking Thursday on “Fox & Friends,” Campos-Duffy said the pledge could help Republicans build momentum before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

“This shows just how creative and rule-breaking and out of the box President Trump is,” Campos-Duffy said. “I’m surprised no one has thought of this before.”

She added: “I mean, it’s actually a great way, as you say, to sort of get that momentum, push things forward. Especially if you are running, you know, as the incumbent in the midterm, you know you’re already going to have those headwinds. This was a brilliant idea on their part.”

The political appeal is easy to understand. The policy behind it remains largely undefined.

Trump cannot distribute the money without congressional authorization, Congress has not approved the estimated $1.2 trillion needed to fulfill the promise, and the White House has not released a detailed funding plan.

WATCH: Rachel Campos-Duffy reacts to Trump’s $5,000 dividend pledge

Trump Ties Payments to Republican Victory

Trump unveiled what he called the “Trump Dividend” Wednesday night during the Republican Party’s midterm convention in Dallas.

“Here is my promise: If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate — both of them —because of our tremendous economic success, like in history. We’ve never had anything like what’s happening. But because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

“That alone should win the midterms,” Trump added.

Trump said recipients would be required to spend the money inside the United States, but he did not explain how the government would enforce that restriction. His remarks also did not specify a delivery date, an income limit, a legislative structure, or a precise funding source.

The president compared the payment to a profitable company distributing money to its shareholders.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us,” Trump told the crowd. “Now all we have to do is win.”

The White House had not released legislation or a formal cost estimate as of Thursday.

Cost Could Reach $1.2 Trillion

The United States has approximately 240 million adult citizens. Paying each of them $5,000 would cost roughly $1.2 trillion before administrative expenses.

That would represent a major new federal expenditure while the government is already operating at a substantial deficit. The Congressional Budget Office reported that the federal deficit totaled nearly $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.

The Constitution gives Congress — not the president acting alone — control over federal appropriations. Lawmakers would therefore have to authorize the payments and identify a source of funding.

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) endorsed Trump’s proposal and said he would prepare legislation authorizing the dividend if Republicans win in November.

Other Republicans have been more cautious.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) told Politico that he wanted to know how the administration intended to finance what he calculated would be a payment “well over $1 trillion.”

The final cost could be lower if Congress imposed income limits or narrowed eligibility. Such restrictions would depart from Trump’s initial promise of payments to “every adult citizen.”

Vance Suggests Wealthy Americans May Be Excluded

Vice President JD Vance suggested after Trump’s speech that wealthy Americans might not qualify.

Vance also argued that tariff revenue could help finance the plan.

“Tariffs have generated a lot of revenues,” Vance told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “The president is saying, if you keep us in power, then you will share in some of the benefit of this incredible wealth that we are creating.”

Tariffs have generated additional federal revenue, but not nearly enough to finance universal $5,000 payments.

Treasury Department figures cited by Time magazine show that customs duties generated approximately $154.5 billion during the first 10 months of fiscal 2026. A $1.2 trillion dividend would cost nearly eight times that amount.

Some tariff revenue also could be reduced by refunds connected to duties the Supreme Court determined were unlawfully imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Unless lawmakers approved substantial spending cuts or another source of revenue, the payments would increase federal borrowing.

Economists have also warned that injecting more than $1 trillion into the economy could increase inflationary pressure. The extent of that effect would depend on the payments’ timing, eligibility requirements, and financing.

Critics Use ‘Bribery’ Label

Some of Trump’s opponents characterized the promise as a “bribe” because he explicitly conditioned the payments on Republicans winning both chambers of Congress.

Baier raised that criticism during his interview with Vance.

“I can hear the critics’ heads exploding,” Baier said. “They’re saying out loud, I guarantee you, ‘the president is bribing voters to vote for Republicans to take over the House, and then he’s bankrupting the country because the deficit and debt is huge and inflation would come back if this comes into play.’ So how do you answer those criticisms?”

Candidates routinely campaign on promises involving tax reductions, new benefits, or government payments that require them and their allies to win office. Trump did not offer individual voters money in exchange for demonstrating how they cast their ballots.

Legal experts told the Associated Press that the proposal would not ordinarily constitute criminal voter bribery, describing it as a campaign promise conditioned on an electoral outcome rather than a payment conditioned on how an individual votes.

Previous Dividend Proposals Did Not Become Law

Trump has floated several direct-payment proposals during his second term.

He previously endorsed a $2,000 tariff dividend, proposed returning part of the savings attributed to the Department of Government Efficiency, and supported deposits into health savings accounts. Congress did not enact those broader payments.

Trump also announced a $1,776 payment for military personnel. That “Warrior Dividend” used money Congress had already appropriated for a housing supplement, making it materially different from the newly proposed $5,000 payments.

Trump’s first administration distributed two rounds of stimulus checks during the COVID-19 pandemic, but those payments also required legislation passed by Congress.

Campos-Duffy’s praise captured the proposal’s immediate political value: It gives voters a clear and easily understood financial incentive to support continued Republican control.

Whether it becomes policy depends on considerably more complicated questions. Congress would have to approve it, lawmakers would need to find more than $1 trillion or restrict eligibility, and the government would have to determine whether the payment could be administered without significantly increasing federal deficits or inflation.

Until the White House submits legislation and identifies a credible funding source, the “Trump Dividend” remains a campaign promise — not a guarantee.

READ NEXT: Today’s AI Is Low Risk. What Comes Next Could Be Different.

Missouri Election Chief Faces Contempt Hearing As Courts Issue Conflicting Map Orders

0
AI-generated image.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins must answer allegations that he violated Missouri’s highest court, even as a federal judge ordered him to use the congressional map the state court barred.

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins is scheduled to appear before the state Supreme Court on Thursday and explain why he should not be held in contempt for directing election officials to use a Republican-backed congressional map the court had ordered him not to implement.

A federal judge declined to halt the contempt proceeding Wednesday night, allowing the extraordinary confrontation between Missouri’s highest court and its Republican election chief to move forward.

The contempt question arises from Hoskins’ Sept. 8 email instructing local election authorities to use the state’s 2025 congressional districts. He sent that directive after Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order barring Missouri from using any map other than the 2025 version.

The difficulty for Hoskins is that the Missouri Supreme Court had already issued a permanent injunction requiring him to use the older districts drawn after the 2020 census.

Hoskins is therefore caught between two conflicting judicial orders. The state Supreme Court says he cannot use the 2025 map, while the federal court says he cannot use any other map.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. Central time.

Hoskins ordered to explain his email

The Missouri Supreme Court ordered Hoskins to appear in person after People Not Politicians, the organization challenging the new map, accused him of openly violating the court’s injunction.

Hoskins attached Clark’s federal order to his email to local officials and wrote that it “takes precedence over the Missouri Supreme Court’s order.”

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell directed Hoskins to explain why that email was not an affirmative violation of the state court’s order. The court also asked whether Hoskins would agree to take no further action concerning the congressional map until a higher court provides guidance.

Attorneys representing Hoskins asked Clark to stop the state contempt proceeding. Clark refused, according to the Associated Press, leaving Hoskins required to appear before the Missouri Supreme Court while the federal litigation continues.

Referendum suspended the new map

Republican lawmakers approved the new congressional districts during a 2025 special legislative session called by Gov. Mike Kehoe. President Donald Trump had encouraged Republican-led states to redraw districts before the midterm elections in an effort to protect the party’s narrow House majority.

The revised Missouri map was designed to improve Republican prospects in seven of the state’s eight congressional districts. Its most consequential change reshaped the Kansas City-based 5th District represented by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver.

Opponents organized a referendum campaign and submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025, according to Axios. Their objective was to suspend the new districts and place the issue before voters.

Hoskins did not reject the referendum until the day of Missouri’s August primary. He argued that state law did not permit voters to use the referendum process to challenge congressional redistricting.

The Missouri Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. It ruled Sept. 3 that the referendum was legal, sufficient, and timely.

Because opponents submitted the petition before the redistricting measure took effect, the court concluded that the new map never became law. It ordered Hoskins to place the referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition A and directed the state to conduct the general election under the 2022 districts.

The court permanently barred Hoskins and officials acting with him from implementing the new map unless voters approve it.

Federal court reaches the opposite conclusion

Missouri officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied that emergency request Sept. 8 without an explanation.

The denial did not establish a nationwide precedent or decide every legal question in the dispute. It simply left the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling in place while the litigation continued.

Minutes later, Clark issued a temporary restraining order in a separate federal lawsuit filed by Republican Rep. Bob Onder, Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin, and two voters. Clark concluded that switching maps after candidates and voters had participated in an August primary under the 2025 lines could cause constitutional injuries and severe electoral disruption.

“Many Missouri voters would have to cast their general election votes for candidates whom they had no role in nominating,” Clark wrote.

Clark also argued that candidates had spent money and organized campaigns within districts that would suddenly cease to exist for the general election. His order required Hoskins to continue using the 2025 map, directly colliding with the Missouri Supreme Court’s command.

People Not Politicians appealed. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Wednesday to suspend Clark’s order, and the organization then returned to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking emergency relief.

Election deadlines are approaching

Missouri must begin mailing ballots to military and overseas voters on Sept. 14, leaving election officials little time to resolve district assignments, candidate placement, and ballot preparation.

County clerks have described the practical problem in plain terms.

“We’ve got the Supreme Court of Missouri saying that we have to use [the 2022 map]; otherwise we’ll be in violation of their order,” Boone County Clerk Brianna Lennon told St. Louis Public Radio. “And then we have the federal court saying that we can’t use them.”

Proposition A will remain on the November ballot regardless of which map governs this year’s congressional election. A “yes” vote would approve the 2025 districts for future elections, while a “no” vote would reject them.

The immediate question is narrower but more urgent: whether Hoskins violated the Missouri Supreme Court’s injunction by affirmatively directing officials to use the prohibited map, or whether the subsequent federal order gave him no lawful alternative. Thursday’s contempt hearing may clarify Hoskins’ obligations, but the final answer about Missouri’s congressional districts could still come from the U.S. Supreme Court.

READ NEXT: The Murdoch Empire Wants To Expand. Washington Has Questions.

Why Some Republicans Are Skipping Trump’s Midterm Convention

3
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump is billing the Republican National Committee’s first midterm convention as a two-day show of party unity. Yet some of the GOP candidates with the most at stake in November have decided their time is better spent somewhere other than Dallas.

The unusual gathering runs Wednesday and Thursday at the American Airlines Center, with Trump and Vice President JD Vance serving as its biggest draws. More than 100 Republican candidates and elected officials are expected to participate, and party leaders say the event will promote the administration’s record while energizing voters ahead of the midterms.

But several Republicans fighting for political survival have made a different calculation: They would rather stay close to the voters who will decide their races.

Vulnerable Republicans Stay On The Campaign Trail

CBS News contacted 60 Republican candidates in competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial contests. Only four confirmed that they planned to attend, while five said they would not.

The remaining 51 did not respond, meaning the survey is not a definitive count of the convention’s no-shows. Still, the confirmed absences include several Republicans in closely watched races.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, whose Pennsylvania district Trump carried by fewer than 300 votes in 2024, offered one of the bluntest explanations: “Our bosses are back home.”

He told CBS News that voters are struggling with household budgets, health care and business costs—and that elected officials should be listening to them instead of standing inside a convention hall.

Colorado Rep. Gabe Evans similarly said his focus would remain on constituents in his highly competitive district north of Denver.

Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar said she needed to campaign in Miami, telling the network, “No one votes for me in Washington or in Dallas.”

Other Republicans sitting out the event reportedly include Reps. Zach Nunn of Iowa and Tom Barrett of Michigan, both of whom are running in districts rated as toss-ups. Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said he planned to spend the time speaking with constituents about concerns that include affordability.

Even Vance has acknowledged that attending may not be the best move for every candidate. He told reporters that Republicans in close races should do whatever helps them make their case to voters, whether that means appearing in Dallas, campaigning at home or raising money.

A $25,000 Price Tag Sparked Confusion

Time away from the campaign trail is only part of the story.

The National Republican Congressional Committee initially asked House members to contribute at least $25,000 for a convention package. According to Axios, it included two tickets, a hotel room and admission to a welcome reception. Larger contributions came with additional benefits, including access to events with party leaders.

The party later exempted members in the NRCC’s “Patriot” program for vulnerable incumbents, but Axios reported that some lawmakers remained confused about who was required to pay.

Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett called the price “pretty steep,” while Texas Rep. Jake Ellzey said some members believed the money would be more useful in their own campaigns.

NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson pushed back on the idea that lawmakers were being shut out, telling CBS News that he distributed 2,000 free tickets to members and staff. Hudson described the dispute as confusion between ordinary admission and optional fundraising packages.

For donors, the asking price climbed much higher. CBS News reported that an RNC email offered packages beginning at $15,000, with premium options reaching $150,000. Those sums have fueled complaints from some party figures who question the value of a costly late-summer spectacle so close to Election Day.

Trump’s Spotlight Creates A Strategic Divide

The convention’s heavy focus on Trump is another factor for candidates trying to hold politically divided districts.

The president has urged supporters to behave as though he were on the ballot, and the RNC says the Dallas gathering is designed to translate his ability to mobilize loyal voters into turnout for Republican candidates.

That strategy has obvious appeal in reliably Republican territory. Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde told CBS News the convention would give the party an opportunity to highlight its record and draw a contrast with Democrats.

Candidates in swing districts face a more complicated choice. Appearing beside Trump could excite core Republican voters, but it could also make it harder for an incumbent to keep the focus on local concerns or appeal to independents.

That helps explain why the event’s speaker list includes competitive-seat Republicans such as Reps. Mike Lawler of New York, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Monica De La Cruz of Texas and Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania—even as other vulnerable members stay home.

There is also tension over the convention’s apparent emphasis on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is locked in a competitive Senate race against Democrat James Talarico.

Trump said Paxton would be a central focus of the event, while CBS News reported that some major Texas donors remain aligned with Sen. John Cornyn, whom Paxton defeated in a bitter Republican primary.

A Test Of Competing Midterm Strategies

The Dallas gathering is not a traditional nominating convention. No presidential candidate will be formally selected, and the party is not meeting to adopt a new national platform.

Instead, it is a made-for-television rally, fundraising event and turnout operation built around Trump and the Republican record.

RNC spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said its purpose is to rally voters around the president, his agenda and GOP candidates. Convention host committee chairman Ray Washburne has argued that attendees will gain valuable access to donors, administration officials and other party leaders.

For candidates skipping Dallas, however, the political logic is more immediate: With Election Day approaching, a day spent at a town hall, local business or neighborhood event may be more valuable than a night beneath the convention balloons.

House Republican Scrubs Trump From Campaign Homepage As GOP Showdown Heats Up

0
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Rep. Young Kim (R-CA) has reportedly scrubbed prominent references to President Donald Trump and his “America First” agenda from her campaign homepage as she fights for political survival in a rare Republican-versus-Republican election.

The makeover comes after Trump-centered messaging helped define Kim’s campaign during the primary — and as she now competes for Democrats, independents and moderate voters against fellow GOP Rep. Ken Calvert.

Politico’s California Playbook first reported the changes Tuesday, prompting additional coverage from Mediaite.

Trump Disappears From The Homepage

During the June primary, Kim’s campaign homepage reportedly presented her as a “Proven Fighter who will Stand with President Trump to deliver a bold America First Agenda.”

Another prominent message promised “America First Leadership to Defend the American Dream,” according to an archived copy of the website.

Neither message currently appears on the homepage.

Instead, Kim’s revamped campaign website now declares that she is “taking on Career Politicians to Restore the American Dream.” A second message simply describes her as “Fighting for the American Dream.”

The apparent shift is not limited to the website.

Campaign signs Kim promoted before the primary identified her as a “Trump Republican.” Signs highlighted by her campaign after the primary instead feature a pocketbook-focused message: “Cut Taxes & Lower Costs!

Campaign Rejects Distancing Claim

Kim’s campaign insists the makeover is not an attempt to put space between the congresswoman and Trump.

Spokesman Chris Pack called that interpretation “completely absurd,” pointing Politico toward recent social media posts in which Kim mentioned the president, including a birthday message.

Trump has not vanished from the campaign website altogether. Kim’s longer biography continues to bill her as a “Proven America First Fighter” and says she fights to ensure Trump has allies in Congress.

“Our campaign has consistently framed this race as a choice between an effective leader like Young Kim, who has delivered results in less than three terms in Congress, and Ken Calvert, whose career has been plagued by corruption controversies and FBI investigations,” Pack told Politico.

The spokesman added that the campaign has Trump-themed signs ready to distribute once local rules allow them to be displayed.

Two Republicans, One House Seat

Kim and Calvert landed in the same race after California voters approved Proposition 50 and redrew the state’s congressional map. Calvert currently represents the 41st District, while Kim represents the 40th.

Both advanced from California’s all-party primary, setting up an unusual general election in which voters will choose between two sitting Republican members of Congress.

Calvert finished first in the June primary with 35 percent of the vote. Kim placed second with 21 percent.

That result means the November winner may need support from voters who backed one of the six eliminated candidates — including Democrats — giving both Republicans a reason to adjust their messages beyond the GOP base.

The fight has already turned intensely personal. Each campaign has accused the other candidate of being insufficiently conservative or insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Calvert’s campaign has branded Kim a “RINO” and resurfaced a past remark in which she reportedly said she wanted to “whip” Trump’s “butt.” Kim’s campaign, meanwhile, attacked Calvert over decades-old reports involving a prostitute and accused him of “sabotaging Trump.”

Now, as the two incumbents compete for the same seat, Kim’s disappearing homepage references are fueling fresh questions about which version of her campaign she believes can win in November.

Trump Hands Ted Cruz A Surprise 2028 Boost

0
White House image via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump just gave one of his fiercest former rivals a potentially valuable boost in the increasingly crowded battle to inherit the MAGA movement.

Trump praised Sen. Ted Cruz as “very talented” when asked whether the Texas Republican could become president—offering an encouraging assessment as Cruz openly flirts with another White House campaign.

“Ted Cruz keeps teasing a 2028 presidential run. You’ve run against him for president. Do you think he could be president? What’s your reaction to that?” Daily Caller White House correspondent Reagan Reese asked Trump during an Oval Office press conference.

“I would say that he’s very talented. He’s a very good friend of mine. I think he might do that. He’s a talented guy,” Trump responded.

It was far from an endorsement—but in a Republican Party still dominated by Trump, the president’s warm words are certain to attract attention.

Cruz Refuses To Clear The Field

Cruz’s ambitions spilled into the open after he was asked during an MS NOW interview whether Republicans had already settled on Vice President JD Vance as their presumptive 2028 nominee.

“I don’t think it’s accurate to say the party is universally settled,” Cruz said, according to The Hill. “I think there will be a full and vigorous discussion about who should carry on the legacy of President Trump.”

The senator became even more direct one day later during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast.

“Do I want to be president? It’s no secret that I want to be president,” Cruz said, according to CBS Austin.

Cruz previously sought the Republican nomination in 2016, emerging as Trump’s toughest primary opponent before ultimately suspending his campaign. Their bitter rivalry eventually gave way to a powerful political alliance, with Cruz becoming one of Trump’s most dependable defenders in the Senate.

Now, Cruz appears unwilling to let the Republican nomination simply be handed to Vance.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Cruz has been visiting Iowa, promoting his latest book and hitting the podcast circuit as he weighs another campaign. The outlet described Vance as the early polling leader but said Cruz is already taking some shots at the presumed front-runner.

Trump Keeps Everyone Guessing

Trump has repeatedly entertained questions about who should succeed him, with Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio most frequently mentioned.

The president reportedly told donors during a private Oval Office meeting, “At the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” according to a Washington Post report cited by the Daily Caller.

Trump later denied that the comment amounted to an endorsement.

“No,” Trump told the Caller when asked about the report. “I think he’s great, but we’re way too early to even be thinking about that.”

Trump has reportedly continued asking allies whether Vance or Rubio should lead the Republican ticket in 2028, suggesting that the president is in no hurry to crown an heir.

“Anyone assuming it’s a lock is just getting way ahead of themselves, or just doesn’t know the president very well,” one administration official told the Washington Post.

That uncertainty gives Cruz an opening—and Trump’s latest comments ensure that the Texas senator will not be dismissed as merely a long-shot challenger.

The 2028 race may still be years away, but the battle to succeed Trump has already begun.

Ted Cruz Quietly Builds 2028 Campaign Machine: Report

1

Sen. Ted Cruz may be ready for another White House brawl — and this time, Vice President JD Vance could be standing in his way.

The Texas Republican has quietly begun asking political operatives whether they would consider working on a potential 2028 presidential campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Cruz has not formally announced a campaign, and his spokesperson declined to comment on the report. But the behind-the-scenes recruiting represents the clearest indication yet that the senator is seriously considering another run for president.

Cruz Starts Putting In The Work

Cruz has been making trips to Iowa, appearing on podcasts and promoting his new biography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — moves that could help him reconnect with Republican activists and potential donors.

He traveled to Iowa twice this year, including a May appearance before the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and a recent campaign swing with Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson.

The state holds special significance for Cruz. He won the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2016 before ultimately finishing second to Donald Trump in the GOP primary.

Cruz has also become increasingly open about his lingering presidential ambitions.

“It’s no secret that I want to be president,” Cruz said during an appearance on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s podcast, according to The Texas Tribune.

“This is a bug that history has proved is rarely ended,” Cruz added. “It is a permanent and often fatal bug.”

When Patrick pressed him on whether he would run in 2028, Cruz stopped short of confirming a campaign.

“Time will tell,” he said.

A Collision Course With Vance?

Any Cruz campaign would likely put him on a collision course with Vance, who leads early polls of prospective Republican candidates and is widely viewed as a possible successor to Trump.

Asked recently whether the Republican Party had already settled on Vance, Cruz immediately rejected the premise.

“Oh no,” he told MS NOW. “There’s going to be a full discussion about who we are and what we believe.”

Cruz said he would “certainly be part of the discussion,” signaling that he intends to help shape the post-Trump Republican Party whether or not he ultimately enters the race.

The senator has already begun highlighting potential differences with Vance, particularly on foreign policy. Mediaite reported that Cruz criticized Vance’s involvement in negotiations over the abandoned memorandum of understanding with Iran.

“JD negotiated the MOU with Iran,” Cruz said. “That was a terrible deal.”

He has also taken aim at Vance’s association with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, opening another potential fault line over the party’s approach to foreign affairs.

People close to Vance have reportedly dismissed Cruz as a serious threat to the vice president’s path to the nomination. But Cruz has already demonstrated that he can compete nationally, winning 11 states during the 2016 primaries.

Trump Leaves The Door Open

Trump, meanwhile, has offered Cruz a notable public boost despite their vicious 2016 rivalry.

“He’s very talented. He’s a very good friend of mine,” Trump told the Daily Caller when asked about Cruz’s presidential ambitions. “I think he might do that.”

Trump has praised Vance behind the scenes, but he has resisted publicly locking in an endorsement for 2028, insisting it is too early to make that decision.

That uncertainty may be all Cruz needs to begin assembling a team — and prepare for another bare-knuckle Republican primary.

Ted Cruz Flatly Rejects Claim GOP Is United Behind JD Vance

1
Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America,

Vice President JD Vance may be the early favorite to inherit the MAGA mantle, but Ted Cruz is warning Republicans that there will be no automatic coronation in 2028.

Asked during an interview with MS NOW’s Ali Vitali whether the GOP had already coalesced behind Vance, Cruz delivered a blunt answer.

“Oh, no!” Cruz declared. “There’s going to be a full discussion about who we are and what we believe,” according to Mediaite.

The Texas Republican said there is “no Never Trump lane” inside today’s GOP and praised President Donald Trump as a fearless and extraordinary political figure. But he argued that Trump’s support cannot simply be transferred to a handpicked successor.

“Trump is a black swan event,” Cruz said, predicting Republicans will spend the coming years debating the party’s identity after Trump leaves office.

Cruz also made clear that he intends to have a voice in that fight.

“There’ll be time to figure that out,” he said when asked whether he could enter the 2028 contest. “I’ll certainly be part of the discussion.”

Days later, Cruz stripped away even more of the mystery.

“It’s no secret that I want to be president,” the senator said Wednesday during an appearance on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s podcast. Asked directly whether he would launch another campaign, Cruz replied, “Time will tell,” according to The Texas Tribune.

Cruz is also scheduled to campaign in Iowa this weekend—his second trip to the early-voting state this year. The senator won the Iowa caucuses during his 2016 presidential campaign and ultimately finished second to Trump after carrying 11 states.

Vance remains the strongest prospective candidate in the emerging field, but the numbers leave plenty of room for a fight. A May Emerson College poll placed Vance at 36% among likely Republican primary voters, just one point ahead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with 15% undecided.

Reports that Trump privately told donors “we need to elect JD” fueled speculation that the president had already chosen his heir. Trump later poured cold water on an immediate endorsement, publicly calling the discussion “way too early,” according to the New York Post.

Vance, meanwhile, has said he will discuss a potential campaign with his wife after the midterm elections, telling CBS News that he expects Trump to support whatever decision he ultimately makes.

For Cruz, however, the coming contest is about more than personalities. He wants Republicans to decide whether they remain a small-government, free-market party and whether they favor American leadership abroad or a more isolationist approach.

The warning to Vance was unmistakable: Being the heir apparent does not make someone the nominee.

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

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.