Today’s edition of quick hits.

* A rapidly moving story out of Brazil: “Defeated presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro has left Brazil for the United States following a stunning loss to incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Sunday’s election, according to multiple media reports.”

* Reaching a tragic threshold: “The fast-moving Ebola outbreak in Congo has reached 10,000 confirmed cases, government data showed Tuesday, as health authorities race to slow the spread of the disease in multiple African countries.”

* Keep a close eye on this one: “The US Federal Election Commission’s website has been targeted by ​a hacker or hackers, disrupting the agency’s electronic filings ‌system a week before the November 3 elections, according to an email seen by Reuters.”

* A revolving door keeps spinning, Part I: “Jennifer Shuford, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s deputy director and chief medical officer, is leaving the administration after a short tenure, she confirmed to The Washington Post late Monday night.”

* A revolving door keeps spinning, Part II: “Jeremy Lewin, one of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s key advisers, is exiting the Trump administration ahead of the midterms.”

* A closely watched case: “A federal judge on Monday night indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from removing even a single tree from a public golf course in Washington, D.C., that President Donald Trump intends to immediately transform into a championship-style course. She has ordered the government to provide notice of at least 10 business days before any closure or ‘irreversible modification’ to East Potomac Park.”

* I’ll be eager to learn where, exactly, he intends to put the White House press corps: “President Donald Trump appeared to confirm that he is considering relocating the press from the White House in a record-breaking post on Truth Social.” The post read in part, “I am thinking about moving the Press, and putting them in a different location, but I will use that location for very badly needed space.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Tuesday’s Mini-Report, 10.27.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

When House Republicans made a surprise announcement in mid-September, sending members home early and abandoning plans for a busy September, there was uncertainty about why, exactly, GOP leaders wanted to do even less work. It wasn’t long before Capitol Hill observers settled on an answer.

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was poised to force a vote on Sept. 17 on impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — and by all accounts, the measure was likely to generate a fair number of bipartisan votes, which would have been deeply embarrassing to the beleaguered Pentagon chief, the White House and the party itself with seven weeks remaining in the election cycle.

And so House Speaker Mike Johnson let members know their last pre-election workday would be Sept. 16.

The move successfully kicked the can down the road, although with Election Day just a week away, Congress has very nearly caught up to that can. Roll Call reported:

The author of a draft House resolution to impeach the Defense secretary said Monday he plans to force a vote on the measure the week of Nov. 9.

The Pete Hegseth impeachment resolution is a “week one” issue for the House lame-duck session, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in a phone interview.

For a long while, as the political world turned its focus to the midterm elections, the lame-duck session appeared to be on some faraway horizon. That’s no longer the case: Members will return to Capitol Hill in two weeks — the week after Election Day — and they will find the Hegseth impeachment resolution waiting for them as they get back to work.

“I give it better than a 50% chance of passing,” Massie, who was defeated in a GOP primary in May, told Roll Call. “Will all the Democrats vote for it? I think the answer to that is yes. And then the second question is, do I get a handful of Republicans? And I think they’re probably more inclined in the lame-duck session to vote for it than they were before their campaigns were over.”

We’ll learn soon enough how that vote turns out, but in the meantime, it’s worth keeping in mind that in the next Congress, if there’s a Democratic majority, Hegseth should prepare himself for fierce pushback. As recently as Saturday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the likely next House speaker should Democrats fare well next week, told MS NOW, “Pete Hegseth needs to be pushed aside by the president, or we’re going to have to deal with that situation if he is not.”

A day earlier, The Wall Street Journal reported, “House Democrats are setting their political sights on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, pushing for his impeachment as the first spoils from anticipated wins in the midterm election.”

The day after Jeffries’ comments, Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a decorated military veteran, appeared on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” and said, “Pete Hegseth remains incompetent and is not doing what’s necessary to protect our service members, which is why he’s my priority No. 1 if we retake the majority, to make sure we oust him from the Pentagon, because our service members actually deserve competent, serious, real leadership that will protect them and do the right thing.”

For most of American history, only one Cabinet secretary has ever been impeached: In 1876, the House impeached Secretary of War William Belknap — after he left office — over alleged bribes. (He was later acquitted by senators.)

Nearly three years ago, Belknap got a little company: House Republicans impeached then-Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas despite having uncovered no evidence the DHS secretary had done anything to merit impeachment. (The Senate dismissed the effort and didn’t bother with a trial.)

Will Hegseth join this tiny club? Watch this space.

The post Vote on Pete Hegseth’s impeachment is on the way — and it probably won’t be the last appeared first on MS NOW.

As is true of the first two criminal cases the Trump Justice Department brought against James Comey in Virginia and North Carolina, the third set of charges, made public this week in Washington, D.C., presents multiple legal issues.

A potentially fatal threshold issue is that federal prosecutors may have blown a key deadline — indeed, the key deadline, one that could kill the latest case against the former FBI director before it even gets going.

The Washington charges, stemming from allegations of unlawfully sharing sensitive government information with a journalist, have a 10-year statute of limitations. That means prosecutors must bring them within a decade of the alleged offense.

The DOJ apparently brought the case just in time to make the 10-year window for alleged criminal conduct from 2016. But regardless of the allegations’ validity on their merits (which a jury could decide down the road, if it gets that far), a more pressing issue is the type of legal instrument that prosecutors used to bring these charges. They used an information, which doesn’t require grand jury approval, as opposed to an indictment, which does. The reason that’s a possibly fatal problem is that the law for these charges says they must be brought within 10 years by “indictment,” without mentioning “information” as an option.

Comey’s lawyers made that point in a pending motion to dismiss. They noted that Congress has referenced both informations and indictments in other laws; therefore, the defense argued, lawmakers know how to specify the difference but chose to require an indictment here. The defense asked the judge to “enforce the text that Congress wrote and dismiss the information as time barred.”

Opposing the dismissal motion, the DOJ argued that it’s both premature and that the difference between informations and indictments isn’t as big a deal here as Comey claims. Prosecutors cited the general five-year statute of limitations law, which references both indictments and informations; from that, they argued that the 10-year law for Comey’s charges, which mentions indictments but not informations, is really only about extending the limitations period, not about the form those charges must take.

The bottom line is that if Comey is correct, then the DOJ’s failure to obtain an indictment within the 10-year period is not a mere technical foot fault — it’s the end of the case before it begins. This latest case, therefore, starts with a crucial court battle over whether it’s a case at all.

It’s a battle that the DOJ could have avoided by securing an indictment. We don’t know why it didn’t do so. We do know, generally, that it has had trouble securing approval of charges from citizens called to grand jury service in President Donald Trump’s second term in some of the administration’s most political cases in the nation’s capital.

At any rate, this felony case won’t proceed toward trial without prosecutors first securing an indictment. That grand jury process is required unless a defendant waives their right to it, which we have no reason to expect here. So even if prosecutors win this threshold battle and succeed in stopping the clock with their placeholder information, they still need to clear that grand jury hurdle.

If they do so, then that would only put prosecutors in a position to face the more standard pretrial motions to dismiss before the case can make it to trial. I say “more” standard because a notable feature of litigation in Trump’s second term has been defendants raising claims that they have been vindictively or selectively prosecuted by this revenge-fueled administration.

As with grand jury refusals to approve indictments, even potentially successful motions along those lines had been rare. Yet they have been raised in a series of high-profile cases in Trump’s second term, including in Comey’s other cases. If this latest one proceeds, then we should expect him to make such a motion here, too. We should also expect it to be taken seriously in this third attempt to prosecute the Trump target with criminal charges that were lodged on the eve of a 10-year deadline — charges which, Comey’s lawyers observed in their pending motion to dismiss, previous prosecutors refused to bring.

And that’s before even getting to a potential trial, where the government would have the burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the factual background section of the DOJ’s pending opposition motion, it said the government “uncovered evidence” that, when Comey was FBI director during Trump’s first term (before Trump fired him in 2017), he told his staff to share information with a New York Times reporter to “correct misinformation” from another outlet’s reporting about email surveillance.

Like all defendants, Comey is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

His Virginia charges, which related to his congressional testimony in 2020, were dismissed pretrial last year, because a judge found the Trump-backed lawyer overseeing the case, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. The DOJ is appealing.

Meanwhile, the judge in North Carolina is considering Comey’s pretrial motions to dismiss that case, which stems from his posting a photo of seashells on Instagram that the government argued amounted to a criminal threat against the president.

The post How the Trump DOJ can lose the new Comey case before it even starts appeared first on MS NOW.

According to Donald Trump’s version of events, ahead of his Saturday night campaign rally in Georgia, his own team encouraged him not to celebrate higher gas prices. The president ignored the good advice.

In fact, Trump spent quite a bit of time at the event bragging that oil and gas companies are “making a fortune” as a result of higher gas prices, so consumers struggling to pay their bills should be glad they’re paying more at the pump.

As for members of his team who encouraged him not to make such comments, the president added, “I said, ‘I don’t give a damn. I’m going to say it.’”

In the same set of remarks, however, Trump also added a related thought that didn’t generate nearly as much attention: “You know, you’re still paying lower than [you were under] Biden.”

When all else fails, this is the card Republicans play when the public discussion turns to gas prices. It’s a talking point rooted in the idea that consumers might be frustrated now, but they should remember that conditions were even worse when Trump’s Democratic predecessor was in the White House.

Except that’s also not true. Reuters reported:

Americans have paid more for their gasoline and diesel at the pump on average during President Donald Trump’s second term than they did under his Democratic predecessor, Joe ​Biden, according to the AAA. […]

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline has averaged $3.472 since Trump took office almost two years ago, edging out the $3.471-per-gallon average for Biden’s term, according to data from the AAA.

In general, gas prices were unremarkable across much of Biden’s term, but after Trump’s friends in Moscow decided to launch an unprovoked war in neighboring Ukraine — a move Trump described at the time as “genius” — prices spiked. When Republicans talk about Biden-era gas prices, they’re hoping Americans forget why, exactly, costs climbed during the Democrat’s term.

Nevertheless, when we look at the broader average, which includes the Russia-imposed spike, the AAA data shows consumers were paying roughly $3.47 a gallon during the Democrat’s presidency — which is less, not more, than the average during Trump’s second term.

What’s more, a Bloomberg News report added that Americans have never paid as much as they’re paying now so late in the year, as opposed to the summer driving season.

Is it any wonder why Trump is peddling unpersuasive nonsense? On one of the key issues of the day, the Republican is confronting a reality that is proving unspinnable.

The post New data shows why Trump should stop talking about Biden-era gas prices appeared first on MS NOW.

As the White House’s anti-fraud task force struggled with its principal task, Team Trump last week turned to a new idea: crowdsourcing. Under the Republican administration’s latest gambit, Americans who uncover and report cases of fraud will be eligible for cash rewards.

Donald Trump specifically said at an Oval Office announcement that “people will make millions of dollars by turning others in.”

That’s an extraordinarily unlikely scenario, although the fact that the president was turning to regular people to help uncover evidence seems effectively like an admission that the task force has fallen short of success. Oddly enough, a week later, Trump, frustrated that his own team hasn’t found evidence of systemic voter fraud either, rolled out another crowdsourcing plan.

On Monday afternoon, he published an item to his social media platform that read in its entirety, “Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

During a brief Q&A with reporters, the president stopped whining about Barack Obama’s Cheesecake Factory joke long enough to reiterate his support for the idea.

Trump: "I'm also going to be issuing a $1 million bonus or reward or whatever you want to call it for anybody that reports voter fraud, leading to the arrest and conviction of somebody. We're giving that person $1 million."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-26T21:03:50.135Z

“I’m also going to be issuing $1 million bonus or reward, or whatever you want to call it, for anybody that reports voter fraud, leading to the arrest and conviction of somebody,” Trump said. “We’re giving that person $1 million.”

Some skepticism is in order. It’s not at all clear whether this new initiative exists in reality. The New York Times reported, “The White House did not immediately respond to questions about where the money would come from for the ostensible rewards or how Americans are supposed to report fraud accusations.”

I guess it’s possible that Trump might agree to cut checks with his own money (he made at least $2.2 billion last year, so he could afford it), but the president isn’t known for easily parting with cash. That means he’d have to get the money from somewhere else, and to date, Congress hasn’t appropriated any such funds. He would also have to create some kind of mechanism for reporting allegations of fraud, which does not currently exist.

The project struck me as interesting, though, because of the motivation behind the apparent scheme. As a factual matter, voter fraud in American elections is exceedingly rare; and the U.S. system is both strong and secure, even if Trump and other Republican conspiracy theorists have spent many years desperately trying to convince the public there is a national scourge tearing at the very fabric of our democracy.

The offer of $1 million payouts is notable, in other words, because it’s the latest in a series of moves intended to undermine public confidence in elections by pointing to an imaginary crisis.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and an election law expert, told The Washington Sun that the White House’s latest move is “part of a larger project on the part of Donald Trump to generate distrust of the election system by touting election fraud as some kind of problem.”

If recent history is any guide, these efforts are likely to get worse in the coming days and weeks.

The post As his team struggles to find voter fraud evidence, Trump turns to crowdsourcing (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

di Alessia Manera*

In queste settimane si stanno riempiendo le piazze di tutta Italia e le modalità, le parole d’ordine che le stanno attraversando, meritano una riflessione attenta, soprattutto da parte di quella società adulta che rischia di utilizzare etichette stantie e di bollare come già visto o rituale un fenomeno sociale che non ha, credo, nessuna di queste caratteristiche.

Per decenni i movimenti sociali occidentali si sono strutturati all’interno di una cornice di pensiero di accumulo e di andamento positivo delle trasformazioni: la prospettiva era la crescita del sistema, la crisi un momento transitorio, in un mondo in cui sviluppo economico e tecnologico si allargavano sempre di più, conquistando e sottomettendo le alterità, che venivano lette alla luce dei propri paradigmi. Il punto in cui eravamo stava su un piano, ma era l’Occidente a stabilire alla luce di quale retta leggere il posizionamento degli altri punti.

Oggi quella narrazione collassa su se stessa a una velocità sempre maggiore e implacabile: l’accumulo è basato sulla speculazione, per cui si estrae dalla materialità delle relazioni (personali, economiche, di potere) senza mai restituire nulla in cambio, come in un buco nero. Si è spezzato ogni patto sociale, e questo appare più evidente a chi un’epoca di patto sociale funzionante non l’ha mai vissuta e la sente raccontare sotto una luce quasi mitologica. Le piazze di oggi sono fatte di generazioni che non hanno più solo l’Occidente e la sua storia come riferimento culturale. Sono generazioni che parlano più lingue, che conoscono sistemi diversi, con le loro funzionalità e imperfezioni, che seguono canali di informazione in arabo, swahili, cinese, albanese, o anche solo inglese, francese e spagnolo, che sanno che le cose possono avere nomi diversi a seconda di quale prospettiva usi per guardarle, che hanno sperimentato spesso la realtà e la violenza di un potere che è democratico solo di fronte alla conformità. Una conformità legata all’identità bianca, di consumo e di privilegio, accettato come elemento fondamentale per l’accesso ai diritti.

Un ossimoro su cui però si fonda buona parte della narrazione “democratica” degli ultimi decenni. Una conformità che queste generazioni rifiutano. D’altronde a queste piazze viene contesto proprio l’essere scomposte, non etichettabili, non rappresentate. Rompono vetrine che non sono solo quelle materiali dei negozi, ma anche quelle della narrazione del potere. Perché non esprimono un dissenso interno al sistema, ma il bisogno di destrutturare il sistema stesso. Hanno capito che il sistema non li può comprare tutti: non ha più i soldi per farlo perché ha spolpato l’economia reale per garantire profitti alla rendita finanziaria.

Sanno che, se quelli che potranno essere comprati sono pochi, loro probabilmente resteranno fuori. Sono fuori. Siamo fuori. E allora credo che abbiano fatto il passaggio logico successivo, quello stesso passaggio che le generazioni più vecchie, ancorate al proprio bagaglio socialdemocratico, hanno paura di fare: se il sistema non garantisce più almeno il minimo di dignità e di prospettiva di vita, deve essere abbattuto e ricostruito. Non c’è più niente da salvare. Il mondo che i nostri genitori e i nostri nonni hanno conosciuto è sparito. Almeno nel cosiddetto Occidente, che non è il faro della democrazia, seppur imperfetta. È il baluardo della rendita, dell’estrattivismo e del saccheggio, che ha smesso di essere proiettato esclusivamente all’esterno e investe oggi anche il centro dell’Impero.

Si vede bene dall’escalation repressiva: perché anche il potere stesso è consapevole di non avere più leve per trattare, di non poter più di fare concessioni neanche per condividere briciole di benessere. È in gioco l’esistenza stessa del sistema, del suo modello di funzionamento, la sua insostenibilità: economica, climatica, sociale, culturale. Quindi reprime, agisce tutta la propria violenza nei confronti di chi denuncia la realtà e prova a mantenere un minimo di presa su quegli spaccati di società sempre più ridotti che sentono ancora di avere qualcosa da perdere. Così vediamo scene che contestiamo perché “indegne di uno stato democratico” ma che in realtà disvelano la democrazia mancata che abitiamo: idranti sulle ambulanze a Bologna, caroselli di blindati in piazza Duomo a Milano, medici e giornalisti manganellati, minorenni fermati per i vestiti che indossano o per i loro tratti somatici.

La profilazione razziale, agita su ragazze e ragazzi che con i loro coetanei condividono lingua, tempo, esperienze, interessi, ne è l’esempio più evidente, insieme a un proliferare di “decreti sicurezza” che hanno evidentemente poco a che fare con la sicurezza collettiva e molto con la repressione di soggettività giovani e con un background non assimilabile: sono, infatti, il tentativo di tracciare un “noi” e un “loro”, un dentro e fuori, che salta quando un’intera generazione è però capace di riconoscersi su un piano di identità collettiva, abituata a riflettersi negli occhi dell’altro sui banchi di scuola, nei parchi, sui vagoni della metro o finanche sulle panchine di un centro commerciale dove stazioni e non puoi comprare, perché la speculazione si è mangiata ogni spazio di socialità possibile e ha lasciato solo quelli del consumo o del desiderio di questo.

Ma, ancora una volta, il noi e loro che il potere vorrebbe costruire – e non ci riesce – conferma solo la traccia di una linea di faglia generazionale, di un mondo in trasformazione che si sta riconfigurando secondo direttrici che esondano le etichette che siamo abituati ad attribuire, esattamente come le esondano le piazze. E chi sa parlare con le periferie e le province dell’Impero ne riconosce prima e più velocemente i pattern e i meccanismi. Ascoltiamoli, perché il re è nudo. E se gli vediamo i vestiti addosso è solo colpa nostra.

*pedagogista e attivista

L'articolo I giovani scendono in piazza perché hanno capito che il sistema attuale dev’essere abbattuto e ricostruito proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In case Republicans weren’t already worried about South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, has received endorsements from two former South Carolina governors — including one Republican.

Two former Governors of South Carolina – one from each party – have endorsed Democrat Annie Andrews who is running against Sen. Darline Graham R-SC

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree.bsky.social) 2026-10-26T17:57:34.529Z

With a week remaining before Election Day, former Republican Gov. David Beasley and former Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges star in a video endorsement in which they throw their support behind the pediatrician taking on appointed incumbent Sen. Darline Graham.

Beasley, a former chair of the Republican Governors Association, said in the ad that “Annie understands that leadership isn’t about making people angrier. Well, it’s about making things better.”

* As MS NOW reported, election officials in Alaska filed a motion Monday night asking a federal judge to “immediately” dismiss the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department that seeks to block the results of the state’s U.S. Senate race should incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan lose, claiming it has “no legal basis.”

On a related note, while the DOJ case is predicated on the idea that voters will be confused by the appearance of two Dan Sullivans on the same ballot — despite the fact that the same ballot clearly identifies one of them as the “Republican incumbent” — it’s worth noting that there were also two Dan Sullivans on Alaska’s ballot in 2014, and the state’s electorate managed just fine.

* In Maine’s U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist poll found Democrat Troy Jackson with a narrow advantage over incumbent Republican Susan Collins, 49% to 47%.

* A relatively new super PAC called Building the Future, which represents the data center industry, initially launched an ad hoping to boost Graham in South Carolina, and now it’s spending more than $1.5 million in support of Republican Ty Masterson’s gubernatorial candidacy in Kansas.

* Donald Trump headlined a rally in Mississippi on Monday night, where the president said, “I’m here because Cindy is doing great,” referring to Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith. Of course, that didn’t make a lot of sense: If the incumbent were “doing great,” there’s no reason Trump would have traveled to Mississippi to help her campaign.

* In Pennsylvania’s four most competitive U.S. House races, the latest polling from The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer and Siena University found Democrats with modest leads in three of the contests. The fourth race is Republican Rep. Scott Perry’s rematch against Janelle Stelson, a Democrat and former news broadcaster, and the poll found them tied at 48% each.

* And in one of Iowa’s most competitive congressional districts, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with the House Republican leadership, is airing an attack ad alleging that Democratic nominee Sarah Trone Garriott is “dangerous” when it comes to children. What the ad neglects to mention is that the critic who makes the claim previously pleaded guilty to charges related to child endangerment.

The post Tuesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.27.26: Annie Andrews picks up key GOP endorsement appeared first on MS NOW.

Last week, on the heels of Trump administration officials going after Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Barack Obama issued a statement condemning the obvious and politicized abuse, explaining, “It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say.”

As part of the same statement, the former Democratic president added, “And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.”

The reference to the former FBI director made a lot of sense in light of the Republican administration’s crusade against James Comey, although Obama could not have known what would happen eight days later. MS NOW reported:

Former FBI Director James Comey is facing new federal criminal charges in Washington, D.C., accusing him of unlawfully transmitting sensitive national defense information and conspiring to disclose it to a reporter, according to court documents unsealed Monday.

Prosecutors filed the two-count criminal information under seal on Oct. 5, alleging Comey improperly disclosed national defense information while serving as FBI director in 2016. The charges include unlawfully transmitting national defense information to an unauthorized person and conspiracy to commit that offense.

According to the filing, Comey was responsible for some kind of sensitive leak on Oct. 5, 2016. The crime carries a 10-year statute of limitations, which made it all the more notable that Trump’s Justice Department brought the new charges on the last possible day.

In a statement, the former FBI director said the developments “would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to.” Comey added, “Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, and I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

It might seem like ancient history, but nearly a decade ago, Trump saw Comey as a political ally. In fact, in January 2017, just two days into his first term, the president appeared to literally blow a kiss at the then-FBI director at a White House event, thanks in part to Comey’s role in undermining Hillary Clinton’s 2016 candidacy.

The affection did not endure. Days later, Trump told Comey he expected “loyalty,” and after Comey did his job instead, the president fired him in the hopes of derailing the FBI’s investigation into the Russia scandal.

When Comey, a lifelong Republican, went public with his concerns and criticisms about Trump, the president came to see the ousted FBI chief as one of his chief enemies, and in April 2018, he started demanding that Comey be prosecuted for crimes that Trump struggled to identify.

It’s taken several years, but the president is seeing the results he’s long sought.

When Trump’s DOJ first charged Comey last year, it was a devastating moment for American law enforcement. MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian reported that within the DOJ, many insiders believed it was “among the worst abuses” in the history of the institution. Describing the circumstances as “shocking,” Dilanian added, “It’s hard to overstate how a big a moment this is.”

Indeed, among the most striking things about the Comey case was that it had barely a pretense of propriety. A failing, desperate and unpopular president wanted a critic to be charged, without regard for merit; he publicly demanded the indictment; and he found officials who were willing to feed his appetite for revenge. It was a tragic lesson that Americans now live in a country where the president’s political opponents are prosecuted at his command.

Alan Rozenshtein, a former DOJ official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School, told The New York Times, “What we are seeing is the almost wholesale collapse of the Justice Department as an organization based on the rule of law.”

The case ultimately collapsed, but not before a federal judge blasted prosecutors for what he described as an “indict first, investigate later” attitude. Around the same time, a bipartisan group of former federal prosecutors and judges wrote in a court filing that the case was an “assault” on the justice system.

In theory, Trump’s DOJ should have been chastened by the condemnations and by the case’s failure. In practice, the shamelessly weaponized department decided to give it another try, charging Comey again in April, alleging he used Instagram to call for violence against Trump by way of a purported seashell-related code.

Legal experts were reportedly “shell-shocked” over the preposterous nature of the case, and with good reason: No fair-minded observer could defend or take seriously such spurious charges.

Nevertheless, there’s now another case.

Time will tell what, if anything, comes of the cases, though there’s no reason to assume that a conviction is Trump’s intended end point. On the contrary, in the broader context, the new indictment checks a different set of boxes for the Republican president.

First, Trump appears eager to make it clear he can orchestrate federal prosecutions based entirely on his whim and petty desires, without regard for merit or evidence. There is, for all intents and purposes, a White House enemies list, and the president seems eager to intimidate and instill fear in those whose names appear on it.

Second, Trump is sending an unsubtle signal to other federal prosecutors who might be inclined to prioritize the rule of law over the White House’s wishes. Indeed, when it comes to the pursuit of the former FBI director, the prosecutors who chose not to bring charges against Comey were replaced with those who would follow political instructions. As a second set of charges moves forward, the message to other prosecutors couldn’t be clearer: Play along with the revenge campaign or face unemployment.

And third, the Comey prosecution allows the president to demonstrate he can force his perceived enemies to endure legal, personal and financial hardships as a direct consequence of their defiance of him, even if the indictments are a joke and the defendants are ultimately acquitted.

Trying to convict the former FBI director is largely irrelevant. The corruption is the point.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post The DOJ’s cases against Comey will likely fail. For Trump, a conviction may not be the point. appeared first on MS NOW.

A sorpresa Lula vince in Brasile. Tra le varie spiegazioni, l’affluenza alle urne. L’astensione del primo turno era arrivata al 21 percento circa. Su circa 159 milioni di elettori registrati, oltre 33 avevano disertato. Nel secondo turno, l’assenteismo è sceso al 19 percento. Secondo molti osservatori, la maggiore mobilitazione è stata decisiva affinché Lula ribaltasse lo svantaggio del primo turno, vincendo il ballottaggio contro Bolsonaro.

Vista dall’Europa e dall’Italia, dove a malapena vota un cittadino su due, l’affluenza brasiliana è comunque e sempre stratosferica. Non è solo entusiasmo democratico. Secondo la Costituzione brasiliana, le regole di accesso al voto sono diverse in base alla età e all’alfabetizzazione. Il voto è obbligatorio per tutti i cittadini alfabetizzati tra i 18 e i 69 anni. Facoltativo per i giovani di 16 e 17 anni, per gli anziani dai 70 anni in su e per gli analfabeti.

Chi ha l’obbligo di votare e non si presenta alle urne deve giustificare l’assenza in modo formale oppure pagare una piccola sanzione amministrativa. Se non regolarizzi la tua posizione elettorale puoi andare incontro a restrizioni burocratiche. Roba fastidiosa come l’impossibilità di rinnovare il passaporto, partecipare a concorsi pubblici, ottenere prestiti dalle banche pubbliche.

Anche nelle elezioni anticipate in Serbia l’affluenza è stata straordinariamente alta, attorno al 70 percento. Uno storico record, il più alto registrato negli ultimi 34 anni, dalla dissoluzione della Jugoslavia nel 1992. La massiccia partecipazione segnala un incremento di circa 10 punti percentuali rispetto alle elezioni del 2023, quando avevano votato poco meno del 60 percento dei cittadini. In Serbia il voto non è obbligatorio. La partecipazione alle elezioni è interamente volontaria.

Anche in Serbia l’affluenza è stata decisiva per la vittoria della Lista Studentesca, salutata dal giubilo dei governi europei, Commissione Europea in testa. Una farsesca contraddizione. Molti di questi paesi — santuari della democrazia occidentale — da un paio di anni manganellano regolarmente gli studenti, introducono nuovi reati loro dedicati e applicano leggi appositamente studiate. E li condannano a pene esemplari, come recentemente in Francia.

L’articolo 48 Costituzione Italiana definisce l’esercizio del voto come un dovere civico. La legge elettorale del 1957 stabiliva che “il voto è un obbligo al quale nessun cittadino può sottrarsi senza venir meno ad un suo preciso dovere verso il Paese”. Non prevedeva sanzioni penali o civili, ma chi non votava senza giustificato motivo era soggetto a una sanzione reputazionale. Il nome era esposto per un mese nell’albo comunale e il certificato di buona condotta doveva annotare per cinque anni la postilla “non ha votato”.

La riforma elettorale del 1993 cancellò definitivamente l’obbligo, assieme alle sanzioni. La moltitudine di leggi elettorali di occasione che la seguirono mai affrontò il nodo dell’astensione. L’ansia riformatrice si concentrò sempre sui marchingegni con cui rosicchiare qualche vantaggio alla propria parte politica, mai sul nodo cruciale della partecipazione.

Le grida alla partecipazione della classe politica italiana sono del tutto ipocrite. Poiché gli eletti sono in grandissima parte nominati, frutto di leggi elettorali ideate a primario scopo, la partecipazione è un elemento estraneo al sistema e l’affluenza solo una percentuale utile ad animare la maratona Mentana in attesa degli exit poll.

Ci sono solo due vie per aumentare la partecipazione dei cittadini, ridotti a consumatori di illusioni secondo l’intuizione visionaria di Guy Debord. La prima è il ritorno alla Legge elettorale del 1957 tal quale, compreso l’obbligo del voto, pur castigato da una pena che nell’Italia contemporanea fa sorridere: la sanzione reputazionale. La seconda è l’introduzione del sorteggio parziale. Perché non sorteggiare un numero di parlamentari proporzionale alla quota di astensione? Se metà degli elettori votano, metà Parlamento sarà eletto; mentre l’altra metà sarà invece sorteggiato da un ampio campione, rappresentativo della società.

Più casualità e meno antipolitica non è una ricetta irragionevole, bensì una soluzione che viene da lontano, fondata sul pensiero politico illuminista che risale a Montesquieu e Jefferson. Una soluzione moderna, irrobustita da rigorose analisi statistiche anche recenti. Nel segno di chi ha a cuore la democrazia e ne teme la deriva.

L'articolo Dal Brasile alla Serbia, l’affluenza cambia tutto: due proposte concrete contro l’astensionismo in Italia proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Uno dei più grandi errori che può commettere la mente umana è quello di confondere la causa con l’effetto. È esattamente il rischio che corriamo in questo tempo sciagurato, pensando che la barbarie sociale sia il frutto di estremisti violenti, come gli studenti, gli autotrasportatori o gli agricoltori che, fra l’altro, in buona parte avevano votato la parte politica che oggi siede al governo.

Se poi alla confusione tra la causa e l’effetto si aggiunge anche l’incapacità di attuare una visione di insieme, comprendendo che la Storia è un flusso unitario di eventi che si evolvono nel tempo, per cui le cose brutte che accadono non sono episodi scollegati da un prima che li ha generati e da un dopo che ne è la conseguenza, allora ci ritroviamo immersi del tutto nel disastro cognitivo.

Il guaio è che il tipo di società iper-spettacolarizzata in cui ci troviamo immersi favorisce proprio i due errori di cui sopra, proponendo un tipo di comunicazione frammentata per cui la nostra attenzione viene concentrata ossessivamente sugli alberi (singoli episodi scollegati), impedendoci di vedere la foresta (l’insieme), per riprendere la metafora di quel grande pensatore dimenticato che è stato il tedesco Günther Anders (1902-1992).

È con questo meccanismo perverso e scorretto che si può far passare l’idea che esiste un problema sociale, rappresentato dal ritorno di un estremismo eversivo che assume i connotati di ragazzi, lavoratori e categorie disagiate nelle cui proteste accadono, in grande minoranza, episodi violenti che purtroppo sono fisiologici. Perché davvero non si capisce, quel fenomeno curioso in base al quale in guerra esistono vittime collaterali ed episodi di violenza gratuita, mentre in una protesta sociale di persone esasperate dovrebbe filare tutto liscio come in un pranzo di gala per educande.

Sarà pur vero, insomma, che in guerra è responsabile primario chi quel conflitto lo provoca, esattamente come di fronte a una folla esasperata lo è chi, governando male, ha generato quell’esasperazione diffusa.
Non mi pare corretto, né certamente funzionale alla comprensione, individuare i colpevoli nei ragazzi, nei lavoratori, o in generale nelle categorie sociali allo stremo che scendono in piazza, concentrandosi sugli scontri con le forze dell’ordine e pretendendo di individuare presunte “menti” eversive che stanno dietro a tutto ciò. Magari dimenticando che viviamo in un paese con gli stipendi fermi agli anni Novanta del secolo scorso, mentre ministri, deputati, governatori locali etc. si sono aumentati i compensi, negli ultimi trent’anni, del duemila per cento.

Come certamente non è corretto dimenticare che sono oltre centomila i ragazzi che, ogni anno, devono abbandonare l’Italia perché qui non c’è lavoro, perché si pretende di compensarli con retribuzioni da fame, perché posti e assunzioni vengono stabiliti sulla base di raccomandazioni, parentele, affiliazioni di varia natura. Per tacere del degrado in cui sono state lasciate cadere la scuola e la sanità, veri e propri indicatori del grado di civiltà di una nazione, oltre che fondamenta imprescindibili del futuro. Senza contare le lezioni ipocrite e pelose che adulti privilegiati, perlopiù grazie al proprio talento per la genuflessione verso i potenti di turno – Bruno Vespa è solo la punta di un iceberg per il quale augurarsi il riscaldamento globale – vorrebbero impartire ai giovani rispetto alla condanna della violenza o alla difesa dello Stato liberale.

Un solo buon esempio educa più di mille parole, sosteneva un grande pedagogista, e se l’esempio è quello di governi occidentali che hanno consentito, nel silenzio più glaciale, lo sterminio del popolo palestinese – per non parlare dell’imperialismo predatorio attuato lungo i secoli contro popolazioni ed etnie considerate inferiori – non vedo da quale pulpito ci si possa ergere a maestri di vita nei confronti di questi ragazzi. Senza dimenticare, a proposito delle lezioni di liberalismo, che già nel XVII secolo il padre del liberalismo (John Locke) aveva stabilito il diritto del popolo a insorgere contro governanti ingiusti o dispotici.

Quei ragazzi, insieme ai lavoratori e alle persone che scendono in piazza, stanno impartendo una grande lezione di educazione sociale, di sanità mentale e di liberalismo. Esattamente i valori occidentali traditi da governanti sciagurati, incapaci e spesso corrotti. Chiunque intenda presentarsi come alternativa ai suddetti deve assumersi tutta la responsabilità di questo tempo sciagurato, senza perdersi in diatribe e divisioni interne che, di fronte al collasso sociale, sarebbero vissute come l’ennesimo tradimento criminale. Intelligenti pauca, dicevano i latini quando non servivano troppe parole.

L'articolo Proteste e violenze: attenzione a non confondere la causa con l’effetto proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Remember Katie Zacharia? She served as Donald Trump’s White House press secretary for about five days before her embarrassing tenure ended abruptly nearly two weeks ago.

Zacharia has said very little in public since losing a job the president never should have given her, but this week, she spoke to the California Post about her extraordinarily unusual experience, pointing to, among other things, her lack of preparation. From the article:

Defending her rocky press room performance, Zacharia claimed she was given “only a few hours of actual briefing material” on the morning of her first press conference. She said former press secretaries, including Kayleigh McEnany, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Ari Fleischer, and Sean Spicer, reached out to express sympathy over what she called an inadequate “runway” to prepare.

In some ways, this helps capture what made the Zacharia story so notable in the first place.

To be sure, it was (and is) notable that the president chose an unqualified and conspiratorial commentator to serve as his chief spokesperson. But just below the surface, the way in which Trump hired and fired Zacharia reflects a spectacularly dysfunctional White House that struggles to complete basic tasks.

The president and his team, without any meaningful vetting process, chose a conspiracy theorist to be the public face of the White House, three weeks before nationwide elections, and then threw her into a difficult role without any meaningful preparation. Failure was both predictable and unavoidable.

But a competent West Wing would have known that in advance and taken steps to avoid a humiliating disaster.

“As the midterm elections draw near, the machine has begun to sputter,” The Atlantic’s Jon Chait noted after Zacharia’s ouster. “In the span of days, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced he would livestream a public execution, only for Trump to overrule him, [and] the administration fired Kimberly Guilfoyle, its ambassador to Greece, for engaging in corruption so overt, it embarrassed even the most corrupt administration in history. … In the midst of this multicar pileup, Zacharia briefly stepped forward as the administration’s stammering face.”

The fact that her failure came as a surprise to Team Trump speaks volumes about its competence — or lack thereof.

As for the former press secretary’s future, Trump told reporters two weeks ago that he expects her to continue to serve in his administration, “maybe a more pleasant form,” though that may not be altogether true.

“Zacharia teased that new career announcements are imminent, vowing to remain an outspoken Trump ally from outside the executive branch,” the California Post’s article added.

The post Katie Zacharia blames brief White House tenure on lack of prep appeared first on MS NOW.

To a degree without modern precedent, White House Cabinet secretaries have spent recent months on the campaign trail, serving as pieces on an electoral chessboard to be moved around to the benefit of the Republican Party — despite ethics laws that are supposed to keep some distance between these powerful officials and partisan political activities.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. isn’t the only offender in the Trump administration, although he has arguably been the most ambitious, making all kinds of appearances with vulnerable GOP incumbents and even trying to orchestrate partisan strategies to give Republican lawmakers a boost.

To that end, Kennedy appeared at a partisan campaign event in Michigan on Monday, against a backdrop of several key contests up and down the ballot, most notably a highly competitive U.S. Senate race that may very well determine which party controls the chamber in the next Congress.

That Kennedy was critical of the Democratic nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, wasn’t too surprising, since this was one of the principal reasons the event was organized. What was notable, however, was how Kennedy targeted the Senate hopeful.

After briefly claiming to have some expertise about the Muslim Brotherhood — the conspiratorial secretary is an environmental lawyer by trade and has no meaningful background in studying transnational religious organizations — Kennedy shared his perspective on “Arab Muslims.”

RFK: "There's five hundred million Arabs in the world. And yet they don't produce science. They don't win the Nobel Prize. They don't win the Fields Prize. They don't win the Wolf Prize. They don't produce literature."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-10-27T00:55:48.501Z

“There’s 500 million Arabs in the world,” he declared. “And yet they don’t produce science. They don’t win the Nobel Prize. They don’t win the Fields Prize. They don’t win the Wolf Prize. They don’t produce literature.”

In context, I think the point Kennedy was trying to make had something to do with criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood, which is itself a pointless observation, since El-Sayed has already denounced the organization and denied any ties to it. But instead of focusing on one group, the health secretary ended up trashing the accomplishments of a half-billion people.

For the record, whether the anti-science activist understands this or not, his criticisms were plainly inaccurate: Plenty of Arab Muslims have received those honors, and plenty of Arab Muslim authors have published works of literature. (In fact, Muslim authors such as Abdulrazak Gurnah and Naguib Mahfouz have won the Nobel Prize in literature.)

What’s more, as Kennedy ought to know, the United States is currently at war in the Middle East, and there are U.S. troops stationed in allied nations in the region. For a White House Cabinet secretary to declare that Arab Muslims are somehow inferior in the fields of science and literature isn’t wrong, it’s wrong on a geopolitical scale.

But there’s also the broader electoral context. As Donald Trump leans into Islamophobic rhetoric in the midterm cycle’s closing days, and the closing message of the president’s party relies heavily on overt and unapologetic bigotry, Kennedy traveled to the state with the largest percentage of Muslims to question the contributions of 500 million people.

Many Muslim voters also took an enormous risk two years ago, moving toward the Republican Party. Now, as many of those same voters feel used and betrayed by the party, if GOP officials are counting on them to remain a part of the Republican coalition, they’re likely to be disappointed.

The post RFK Jr., on the campaign trail in Michigan, trashes the accomplishments of ‘Arab Muslims’ appeared first on MS NOW.

La Corte costituzionale con una sentenza, del 22 ottobre 2026, chiede ai giudici Ue di chiarire se l’Italia possa subordinare l’accesso degli stranieri agli alloggi pubblici al requisito del lavoro. Sotto esame anche i punteggi legati alla lunga residenza in Piemonte. Si può escludere dalle case popolari uno straniero regolarmente soggiornante perché non ha un lavoro? E può farlo l’Italia senza aver previsto in modo esplicito questa limitazione nella legge con cui ha recepito le regole europee? La Corte costituzionale porta la questione davanti alla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, aprendo un passaggio decisivo sul rapporto tra diritto alla casa, parità di trattamento e condizioni imposte ai cittadini extracomunitari.

Con l’ordinanza n. 175, depositata il 22 ottobre, la Consulta ha disposto un rinvio pregiudiziale ai giudici di Lussemburgo e sospeso il giudizio. Non si tratta, dunque, di una bocciatura definitiva delle norme italiane, ma di una richiesta di chiarimento da cui dipenderà la valutazione della loro legittimità.

La controversia nasce davanti al Tribunale di Torino e coinvolge l’Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi), un cittadino straniero, la Cgil Piemonte e i sindacati degli inquilini Sunia e Sicet, contrapposti alla Regione Piemonte e all’Agenzia territoriale per la casa del Piemonte centrale. Nel mirino ci sono le regole regionali introdotte nel 2024: per accedere all’edilizia residenziale pubblica, i cittadini non appartenenti all’Unione europea devono avere un permesso di soggiorno di almeno due anni e svolgere regolarmente un’attività lavorativa subordinata o autonoma. Un requisito che rischia di escludere proprio chi, non avendo un reddito da lavoro, si trova in una condizione di maggiore difficoltà economica e abitativa.

Il nodo è europeo. La direttiva 2011/98 riconosce la parità di trattamento, in determinati ambiti, ai cittadini di Paesi terzi regolarmente soggiornanti. Prevede però anche la possibilità per gli Stati membri di limitare l’accesso all’assistenza abitativa agli stranieri che svolgono un’attività lavorativa. La domanda è se l’Italia abbia esercitato validamente questa facoltà.

Il requisito del lavoro era già contenuto nel Testo unico sull’immigrazione del 1998 ed è stato mantenuto dopo le modifiche del 2002. Nel 2014, quando l’Italia ha recepito la direttiva europea, la disposizione non è stata cambiata. La relazione illustrativa e gli atti preparatori indicavano la compatibilità della norma con il diritto Ue, ma il testo legislativo non contiene un’esplicita dichiarazione di deroga. La Consulta chiede quindi alla Corte di giustizia se bastino le intenzioni ricavabili dai lavori preparatori oppure se la scelta di limitare la parità di trattamento debba essere scritta chiaramente nella legge.

Nel procedimento torinese è contestato anche il sistema piemontese che attribuisce punteggi aggiuntivi in base a 15, 20 o 25 anni di residenza continuativa nella regione. Secondo il giudice rimettente, premiare una permanenza così lunga potrebbe penalizzare chi ha un bisogno abitativo più urgente, senza un legame diretto con la reale necessità di ottenere un alloggio.

La partita resta aperta: la Consulta non ha ancora stabilito se le disposizioni siano illegittime. Prima dovrà arrivare la risposta dell’Europa. Con l’ordinanza n. 176, anche un giudizio costituzionale collegato è stato rinviato a nuovo ruolo.

In ultimo segnalo come la questione sollevata dalla Corte Costituzionale abbia un impatto più ampio in quanto la questione degli anni di residenza coinvolge anche i migranti interni e in alcuni comuni e regioni viene negata la partecipazione ai bandi per case popolari a chi non ha redditi. Sarà interessante capire l’orientamento dei giudici europei.

L'articolo Case popolari agli stranieri, i giudici europei dovranno esprimersi su un tema decisivo proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

When Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail in Michigan over the weekend, the former Democratic president took aim at his Republican successor on a variety of fronts, but he seemed especially interested in mocking Donald Trump’s misplaced priorities.

“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations. He should be on HGTV,” Obama said. “The guy’s building a ballroom that’s bigger than the White House. He’s paved over the Rose Garden, put a helicopter pad on the South Lawn.

“And there’s gold everywhere. What’s up with the gold? He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory. Just gold everywhere.”

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened up a Cheesecake Factory” — Obama

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-24T19:12:37.597Z

The comments drew hearty laughter, probably because Obama was right: Trump really is fixated more on remodeling, renovations and interior design than on his weighty responsibilities. That preference has gone poorly, because Trump’s presidency is failing and because the Republican’s gaudy taste has turned the Oval Office into a showcase for gold curios.

If the incumbent president were capable of thinking strategically, he would have taken this opportunity to push a constructive message that reflected the concerns of the American mainstream and proved Obama wrong. Trump instead spent Monday doing the opposite.

Before departing for Mississippi, for example, the Republican held a seven-minute Q&A with members of the White House press corps, and he spent more than half of it whining in response to Obama’s ridicule.

Soon after, the president headlined a rally in support of struggling GOP Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, where he spent another six minutes whining in response to the joke.

The pushback was itself foolish. To hear Trump tell it, Obama is “a stupid person” and “a lousy president” who “doesn’t like” companies like the Cheesecake Factory. The Republican also said he had spent “peanuts” on White House renovations, which seemed like an odd way to characterize roughly $1 billion in investments.

Just as notably, Trump wants Americans to know he’s worked tirelessly with the world’s “finest artisans” to overhaul the presidential mansion and make it “beautiful.” (He didn’t comment on Obama’s reference to Saddam Hussein, about whom Trump has said positive things in the recent past.)

So as Obama poked fun at his successor’s fixation on vanity projects and his failure to focus on what really matters, triggered Trump thought it would be good to fixate on his renovations in the most vainglorious way — and to prove Obama right.

The post Triggered by Cheesecake Factory joke, Trump inadvertently helps prove Obama’s point appeared first on MS NOW.

Our publications, studies and analysis have a new home. We’ve launched a new website, offering a more dynamic experience, with enhanced features that make our research easier than ever to read and share.

Starting today, you can discover our latest content at http://eprs.europarl.europa.eu/

The EPRS blog will remain available until 29 October 2026. From November, it will be discontinued and visitors will be redirected to our new website.

Don’t forget to update your bookmarks. We look forward to welcoming you to our new platform!

Il signor Ignazio Benito La Russa si è detto disponibile a ritirare la querela contro la “signora” Michela Ponzani in cambio di pubbliche scuse.

La professoressa, storica rigorosa e stimata dalla comunità scientifica per la sua serietà, ha respinto la richiesta, lo ha invitato a querelare, a confrontarsi in tribunale, e a chiamarla professoressa. Non sarà facile per il signor La Russa dimostrare la sua estraneità a quei cortei non autorizzati, compreso quello da dove partirono le bombe che colpirono l’agente Marino.

Sarà il caso di ricordare che il signor La Russa, insieme a Salvini, è stato tra i più attivi nel reclamare ed esibire le teste di Roberto Saviano e Sigfrido Ranucci. Telemeloni ha accolto le loro richieste, ma non sempre si può trovare un cortigiano pronto a inchinarsi. Quelle dichiarazioni la professoressa Ponzani le ha rilasciate durante la trasmissione “Otto e mezzo” condotta da Lilli Gruber, la replica non è stata oscurata, e la professoressa non farà un solo passo indietro.

Sara il caso di ricordare che questa destra odia la memoria, vuole cancellare la matrice, non casualmente proprio il signor La Russa ha più volte minacciato, deriso, diffamato il giornalista Paolo Berizzi, unico cronista sotto scorta in Europa per le minacce ricevute da gruppi nazifascisti. Berizzi ha il solo torto di ricordare ogni giorno le imprese, di ieri e di oggi, di chi non ha mai reciso il legame con Mussolini, Salo, Giorgio Almirante…

Se e quando vi sarà la prima udienza che vedrà di fronte il signor La Russa e la professoressa Ponzani, sarà nostro compito schierare la “scorta mediatica”, non solo per solidarizzare con chi ha respinto arroganza e intimidazione, ma anche per solidarizzare con la Costituzione antifascista.

L'articolo La Russa ritirerà la querela contro Ponzani in cambio di pubbliche scuse: questa destra odia la memoria proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

Written by Clare Ferguson with Áine Feeney.

As Members gather for the last plenary session before the summer recess, their agenda covers enlargement, foreign affairs, competitiveness, the EU budget, agriculture, social security and the environment. On Tuesday morning, a debate will follow a presentation of the programme of activities of the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which began on 1 July. On Wednesday morning, Members will hear Council and European Commission statements on the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 18‑19 June 2026.

EU-Mexico relations

Bilateral relations between the EU and Mexico have been bolstered by the current framework since 2000. On Tuesday, Parliament is due to decide whether to give its consent to the conclusion of two instruments to update this framework, the EU-Mexico Political, Economic and Cooperation Strategic Partnership Agreement (Modernised Global Agreement, MGA) and an interim Trade Agreement (iTA), both of which were signed by the EU and Mexico in May 2026. Parliament remains in favour of modernising the MGA, with a joint report by the International Trade (INTA) and AFET committees welcoming it as a step towards further economic expansion that could benefit EU companies and farmers. The INTA committee is due to vote on a draft recommendation on the conclusion of the iTA before the plenary vote.

Passenger rights

Lower ticket prices and a wider choice of routes are not the only results of air transport liberalisation. On Monday, Members are expected to discuss an agreement to revise the air passenger rights framework to better protect passengers during increasingly common travel disruption. Delayed in the Council for over a decade, Parliament has shown consistent support for measures to protect air passengers and their rights. Parliament negotiators reached a political agreement in conciliation with the Council in June 2026. The agreement maintains the three-hour threshold for compensation for flight delays and strengthens passenger rights including on rerouting options, protection for missed connections and reimbursement for unused vouchers.

Social security when working abroad

A reform of EU social security rules aims to help citizens living or working in another EU country and better distribute responsibilities between EU countries. Members are set to vote on a provisional agreement on the move to modernise the rules on Monday. Parliament’s negotiators maintained mandatory prior notifications for the construction sector in the agreed text, meaning that authorities of the home Member State would be notified if someone works in another Member State. Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL) confirmed the agreement in April 2026 and Parliament and the Council now need to formally adopt the new social security rules.

East Asia relations

The geopolitical situation in East Asia has grown more volatile as the region experiences increased security challenges triggered by authoritarian regimes. On Monday evening, Members are expected to vote on an AFET committee recommendation, which affirms the need to deepen cooperation with partners in the region, including Japan, Korea, ASEAN and Taiwan. Parliament also recommends establishing a comprehensive EU-Taiwan cooperation framework, in addition to strengthening EU engagement with regional security initiatives and diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation in East Asia. 

Fertiliser prices

The crisis in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused an increase in fertiliser prices, placing a significant financial burden on farmers. On Tuesday, Members are set to vote on a proposal for a regulation to provide temporary common agricultural policy (CAP) support, which would offer exceptional support to farmers most affected by the soaring prices, including the possibility of increased advances on direct payments through existing CAP envelopes. Given the urgency, Parliament decided to consider the proposal without preparing a report, to enable farmers to make prompt decisions on buying fertilisers for the year ahead.

28^th tax regime

The EU’s plans to allow companies to register as an ‘EU Inc.’, recognised across all Member States, under a ’28th regime’, are central to its competitiveness agenda, aimed at simplifying rules for companies to scale up in the single market. Complementing the legislative proposal already on the table, Members are expected to vote on an own-initiative report from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), on Thursday, on the feasibility of a 28th tax regime and its potential to support competitiveness by simplifying and harmonising corporate taxation.

Environmental crime

Environmental crimes can have a devastating impact, yet they are difficult to detect and prosecute. Parliament has repeatedly called for measures to combat such crimes. On Wednesday, Parliament is scheduled to vote on endorsement of the EU’s ratification of the Council of Europe’s new Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. A report from the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee recommends ratification, concluding that the convention is consistent with the EU directive. The new convention establishes minimum requirements for the criminalisation of environmental offences related to activities such as pollution, destruction of biodiversity and improper handling of hazardous waste.

EU Budget

To enter a 2025 budget surplus of €2.1 billion as revenue in the 2026 budget, on Tuesday Parliament is set to consider the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 1/2026 (DAB 1/2026). While endorsing the proposal, a report adopted by the Committee on Budgets (BUDG) welcomes that higher own resources are driving the surplus rather than underspending, but reiterates its long-standing view that revenue from fines and fees should strengthen the EU budget instead of lowering national contributions, and calls for more sustainable EU own resources in the next multiannual financial framework.

Annual enlargement reports

Enlargement remains a prominent topic at this plenary session. On Tuesday, Members are expected to debate separately three reports prepared by the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), on Ukraine, Moldova and Serbia. The report on Ukraine stresses the need for a ‘sustainable’ ceasefire and a peace agreement reached with the participation of the EU, while also recognising Ukraine’s European integration as a strategic priority for the Union.

AFET’s report on Moldova commends the country’s commitment to EU accession, condemning attempts by Russian efforts to destabilise Moldova’s path to accession through interference campaigns.

As a result of political instability in the country, Serbia’s EU accession process remains at an impasse. The AFET report recalls that accession is conditional on respect for EU values and democracy, reiterating the need for Serbia to affirm its geopolitical orientation towards the EU, particularly in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.

Further reading

• Agenda
• Priority dossiers under the Irish EU Council Presidency
• 2025 Commission report on Ukraine
• 2025 Commission report on Moldova
• 2025 Commission report on Serbia
• EU-Mexico agreements
• The changing geopolitical situation in East Asia
• Temporary CAP support to help farmers cope with high fertiliser prices
• Feasibility of a 28^th tax regime and its potential to support EU competitiveness
• Air passenger rights
• Developments in social security coordination
• EU accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Environmental Crime
• Draft amending budget No 1/2026: 2025 surplus

Written by Clare Ferguson with Áine Feeney

Ireland is a parliamentary republic, with a bicameral parliament. The country currently elects 14 Members to the European Parliament. This will be the country’s eighth EU Council presidency. This year, the Irish Presidency’s main political priorities are competitiveness, promoting European values, and security. It will prioritise delivery on simplification, improving the single market, and advancing the energy transition.

Unsurprisingly, digital and prowess in artificial intelligence is also a focus, given that Ireland features in the top five EU Member States on research and innovation. The Irish Presidency will have to formulate a position on several legislative packages in this area, including the Digital Omnibus on data.

Ireland’s high trade in services is also likely to drive continued efforts to build a mutually beneficial EU-US trade and investment relationship during its presidency. Another focus is to boost relationships with other trading partners, including Switzerland and countries in Asia and the Middle East.

Defence and enlargement are also central themes, as Ireland seeks to ‘defend and vindicate’ European values within the EU and globally, with particular emphasis on Ukraine and ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, and progressing accession negotiations with Montenegro, Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine.

With the aim of reaching an agreement among Member States on the EU’s multiannual financial framework for 2028 to 2034 before the end of the year will mean continued intensive discussions on the EU’s own-resources system to finance the budget.

Preparing the presidency has long been under way, with various Irish delegations coming to Brussels. Most recently, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, along with political group leaders visited Dublin to meet with leaders including President Catherine Connolly and Taoiseach (prime minister) Micheál Martin.

Further reading:

• Ireland: Key Economic Indicators (infographic)
• The Irish Parliament and EU affairs
• Priority dossiers under the Irish EU Council Presidency

Written by Clare Ferguson with Áine Feeney.

European Union enlargement and competitiveness are prominent issues on the agenda for the European Parliament’s June plenary session. Jakov Milatović, President of Montenegro is expected to address Parliament in a formal sitting on Tuesday. During the question time session, a European Commissioner will respond to Members’ questions on the state of play on its pledge to reduce the reporting burden, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. The Council and Commission will also make statements ahead of the European Council meeting taking place from 18_‑19 June 2026. Andrzej Poczobut, laureate of the 2025 Sakharov Prize for his defence of freedom and democracy in Belarus, is expected to address a formal sitting on Wednesday following his recent release from imprisonment in that country.

The path to accession for[CF1]  new Member States is a key topic at this plenary session, with Members set to debate several own-initiative reports from the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) on enlargement candidates in the Western Balkans on Tuesday. The AFET report on Montenegro welcomes the country’s progress and encourages sustained momentum on accession negotiations. The committee also commends Albania‘s dedication to EU integration, but expresses concern about the impact of corruption and calls for full implementation of anti-corruption reforms. The [AC2] AFET report on Kosovo* reaffirms that the country’s future lies with the EU, and stresses inclusion in EU programmes and policies is vital for gradual integration. AFET’s report on Bosnia and Herzegovina expresses support for EU accession and urges political leaders to renew their commitment to EU membership. Similarly, the AFET report on North Macedonia reaffirms its support for the country’s EU membership aspirations, although it regrets the lack of progress since its 2025 report.

Despite applying for accession as far back as 1999, progress towards Türkiye’s EU membership bid has faced numerous delays since accession talks began in 2005. On Tuesday, Parliament is set to consider an AFET report on Türkiye, which reaffirms Parliament’s appreciation for the majority of Turkish people’s aspiration to EU accession and maintaining Türkiye’s candidate status. It also reiterates Türkiye’s relevance as a NATO ally and a country with which the EU has multi-layered relations. However, AFET regrets that, despite the Turkish government’s repeated statements recommitting to the EU membership goal, serious concerns raised in previous AFET reports regarding shortcomings affecting the accession process remain unaddressed.

On Wednesday, Members are also due to consider an AFET report on the status of Georgia’s EU accession status. The report deplores the continued democratic backsliding in the country and echoes Parliament’s position of non-recognition of the legitimacy of the Georgian parliament. It also reiterates calls for the EU to impose sanctions against key officials and regime enablers.

On Monday evening, Parliament is due to consider the trilogue agreement reached on the proposal for two regulations to implement the EU’s tariff commitments under the EU-US Joint Statement. The Committee on International Trade (INTA) adopted its reports in March 2026. The agreement empowers the Commission to suspend the application of the regulation if the US fails to meet its commitments and introduces additional safeguards, including stronger suspension mechanisms and protections against import surges that could harm domestic producers. If adopted, a comprehensive review of the measures will be conducted in 2029, with the possibility of extension.

Parliament is committed to ensuring that there are robust legal frameworks to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in the EU. On Monday evening, Members are expected to consider adoption of a provisional text on the ‘Digital Omnibus on AI‘, a set of amendments to the AI Act. Parliament favours fixed deadlines for applying high-risk AI rules, and proposes a ban on AI systems that generate non-consensual sexual content. The co-legislators reached a provisional agreement in May 2026, since approved by the Committees on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) jointly. The agreed text upholds Parliament’s position on the generation of non-consensual sexual content and prohibits AI practices generating child sexual abuse material. If adopted, application of certain parts of the AI Act will be postponed, without impacting the act’s core provisions and risk-based approach.

Despite playing an important role in the food-supply chain, farmers have faced mounting difficulties in recent years. On Tuesday, Parliament is expected to consider a provisional text on a regulation strengthening farmers’ position in the food-supply chain. Based on a report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), Parliament reached agreement with the Council in March 2026. The agreed text aims to ensure that food prices better reflect the production costs borne by farmers and includes support for the dairy sector, such as the introduction of mandatory written contracts. It also reinforced the bargaining power of producer organisations and includes clarification on labelling to ensure consumer protection and fair competition.

Similarly, on Wednesday, Members are due to consider regulations on horticulture. A provisional agreement reached with the Council on the Commission’s proposal on plants obtained by new genomic techniques, aims at aligning existing EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with new scientific developments. Parliament’s negotiators supported the simplification of rules for low-risk genetically modified plants (NGT1), provided they are similar to conventionally bred plants and do not have certain excluded traits. The agreement also includes provisions intended to address concerns related to market concentration and access to seeds for breeders and farmers. The Committee on Environment (ENVI) is expected to vote on the provisional agreement on 15 June 2026, which could be put to a plenary vote during the same week if it is approved without amendment.

Water scarcity and water bankruptcy are serious global issues, and mitigating violations of the human right to water remains crucial for regional stability and sustainable development. On Wednesday, Members are set to consider a recommendation to the Council, Commission and High Representative regarding transnational water governance. An AFET committee report notes the importance of transnational water governance for conflict prevention and peace, underscoring the growing political and security dimensions of water issues. The report calls on Parliament to condemn the weaponisation of water in conflicts and urges the EU to increase funding for transboundary water management and to take the lead in advancing the UN Sustainable Development Goal on clean water.

The improper management of end-of-life vehicles can damage the environment and lose millions of tonnes of material that could be recycled to the benefit of the EU economy instead. On Thursday morning, Parliament is due to consider a provisional agreement on circularity requirements for vehicle design and end-of-life vehicles. The agreement sets out requirements for passenger, commercial, and heavy-duty vehicles. Each vehicle type must include recycled plastic, in line with progressively rising targets and minimum recycled content requirements. Manufacturers and producers will also be obliged to clearly label refurbished parts and provide information regarding safe access to, removal, and replacement of parts.

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

Further reading:

European Parliament Plenary Session June 2026 – agenda

• Question time: State of play on the European Commission’s pledge to reduce the reporting burden, in particular for SMEs
• Digital Omnibus on AI: Adoption in plenary
• EU-US tariffs agreement
• Strengthening farmers’ position in the food supply chain
• Circularity requirements for vehicle design and end-of-life vehicles
• Promoting transnational governance on water in the interests of conflict prevention and peace
• Plants obtained by new genomic techniques
• 2025 Commission report on Georgia
• 2025 Commission report on Montenegro
• 2025 Commission report on Albania
• 2025 Commission report on Türkiye
• 2025 Commission report on Kosovo
• 2025 Commission report on North Macedonia
• 2025 Commission report on Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Laureates of the 2025 Sakharov Prize
• Supporting democracy in Belarus
• Current membership of the European Council

Written by Sidonia Mazur.

The proposal sets the 2027 European Union budget commitments at €199.9 billion and payments at €212 billion. The Commission underlined that the ‘next year’s budget will continue to provide crucial funding for established EU political priorities, including major support for Ukraine’.

Background – 2027 budget procedure

The European Parliament is one of the two arms of the European Union’s budgetary authority, the Council being the other. The two institutions, assisted by the European Commission, decide on the budget in the annual EU budget procedure, within the limits of the long-term EU budget – the multiannual financial framework (MFF). It is the European Commission’s task to propose a draft budget each year. The Commission takes into account the views of the two arms of the EU budgetary authority, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. The Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) agreed on its guidelines for the 2027 EU budget on 17 February 2026. The European Parliament adopted its guidelines for the preparation of the 2027 budget, Section III on 28 April 2026. Parliament underlined that ‘the final year of the current MFF must focus on delivery for people, the economy and the planet and on providing investments for competitiveness’.

Next steps

On 9 July 2026, the Commission plans to formally adopt the 2027 draft budget and publish it in all official languages. More information on performance will be presented in the Annual Management and Performance Report scheduled for 16 June 2026.

On 16 July 2026, Parliament, Council and Commission will meet for a first budgetary trilogue.

By mid-July 2026, the Committee of the permanent representatives of the governments of the Member States to the European Union (Coreper) will approve Council’s draft position on the 2027 draft budget. The Council is expected to adopt its position on the 2027 draft budget in September 2026.

In October 2026, Parliament is due to adopt its position on the 2027 draft budget.

Possible meetings of the Conciliation Committee are likely to take place between 27 October and 16 November 2026.

Further reading

• Parliament’s guidelines for the 2027 budget: Parliament’s guidelines for the 2027 EU budget. Section III – European Commission
• More information on EU support to Ukraine: State of play: EU support to Ukraine
• For more on Parliament’s role in the EU annual budgetary procedure see: Annual EU budgetary procedure: An introduction to the steps in the European Parliament
• Parliament’s position on the new MFF: 2028-2034 EU budget: Parliament’s position

Video

Parliament’s role in the annual EU budget