The Trump administration is trying to put the kibosh on a website that has published information exposing the identities of thousands of officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS has been key in waging Donald Trump’s deadly and racist crusade against immigrants and people who support them. The administration’s efforts to shield the mostly masked agents — often citing unsubstantiated threats of violence — have inspired activists to find ways to expose those carrying out the crackdown.

Some groups, such as the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, have used public records to spotlight DHS employees who have been charged with sex crimes against women and children. And now the Trump administration is freaking out after the transparency group DDoSecrets published leaked information identifying more than 40,000 employees at DHS, including some involved in undercover operations.

As The Guardian reported:

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked ⁠an Icelandic hosting company on Thursday to take down or limit access to data related to thousands ⁠of agency personnel, saying ⁠the content ​put them at risk, according to the request posted online by hosting company FlokiNET.

The database “places more than ⁠40,000 identifiable individuals at risk of harassment, stalking and physical harm,” the request said.

ZeroFox, a company authorized by the US ⁠Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to pursue content removal actions, cited the figure in ​an email to FlokiNET.

FlokiNET’s ‌CEO, Kolja Weber, told ‌Reuters that his company would not remove the DHS data because it ‌included government employee work addresses and work phone numbers, not personal phone numbers and addresses.

Trump has gutted several aspects of the country’s cybersecurity apparatus and left various institutions vulnerable as a result. MS NOW’s Rachel Maddow recently discussed the problem this has created for states:

Last month, the FBI was hit with a cyberattack that current officials and outside experts described to MS NOW as one of the worst counterintelligence disasters in modern history. At the time, one FBI agent gave MS NOW their unvarnished opinion on the source of the breach: incompetency.

From Ken Dilanian and Carol Leonnig’s report:

“This was a vulnerability that supposedly they thought they patched, but managed to miss one of the ways to patch it,” the agent said in a text message, adding that the cause was “definitely incompetence.”

It’s unclear whether or how the Trump administration’s idiotic push to gut the nation’s cybersecurity defenses played a role in the latest DHS hack. But it seems abundantly clear that it hasn’t helped matters.

The post Trump administration freaks out over leaked data on DHS officials appeared first on MS NOW.

Days before Election Day, the fight over the results is already underway.

In Alaska, the Justice Department is suing to block certification of the Senate race if the Republican candidate loses narrowly. In California, federal prosecutors issued subpoenas to force election officials to testify about alleged noncitizens on their voter rolls. In a northern Texas county, the local GOP party is suing to block certification of election results unless every ballot in the state is counted by hand.

That is likely just the beginning.

Republicans close to the White House, Democratic lawyers and senior Democratic congressional aides told MS NOW they expect the Trump administration and its allies to contest results and try to block certification in key counties and states after Tuesday.

Some Republicans, including some GOP lawmakers, have floated a last resort if that fails: refuse to seat Democrats who win.

President Donald Trump, who wages some version of this fight nearly every election cycle, has primed his base for it. The difference this time is that he has the full force of the federal government behind him, with loyalists in key posts — including his former personal lawyer, who now leads the DOJ.

Democrats are “great at cheating,” Trump said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa — a false claim he repeats at nearly every rally. “They cheat like hell. And if they didn’t cheat, they could never win.”

Two people close to the White House, including a former Trump administration official, told MS NOW that the DOJ is certain to file more lawsuits challenging results in other states, on top of its pending suits in California and Alaska. One of them said to expect Republicans to contest the outcome in states such as Michigan, where Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has become a target of Trump’s racist and Islamophobic attacks.

“Georgia will ultimately be in the crosshairs; Michigan always, especially if El-Sayed wins by less than 1%, and Wayne County is the last county that we get in,” said one of the people close to the White House, who was granted anonymity to describe the strategy. “Whether there’s fraud or not.”

But the same person acknowledged expecting the challenges to fail.

“We can be fired up, we can have great lawyers, but judges hate these cases, and they almost always go nowhere,” they said. “We’re not gonna win in a courtroom.”

Still, nearly everyone in both parties who spoke to MS NOW said they are bracing for the main battle to unfold in the states during the vote count and certification. Once all the votes are counted, local and state officials review and certify the results. They then send the official record of who won, known as certificates of election, to the House and Senate.

“We’re preparing for all manner of certification fights, which are not at the end of the day federal fights,” said a senior Democratic aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal war-gaming. “These are fights in county courthouses and state supreme courts, not in the halls of Congress.”

The DOJ and Republican law firms are expected to mount their challenges before the winners’ certificates ever reach Congress. If those challenges fail, some of Trump’s allies are already eyeing the next stage: January, when the new Congress is sworn in. Trump’s steady drumbeat of election fraud disinformation, including the false narrative of widespread voting by noncitizens, has once again emboldened them.

Ari Fleischer, who was White House press secretary under former President George W. Bush, suggested the Senate could refuse to seat Mary Peltola, the Democratic Senate candidate in Alaska, even if the state were to transmit the certificate of her victory.

“I don’t know if the Senate is going to seat her,” Fleischer said. “The Congress decides — has the ultimate say in who the members of Congress are.”

Trump himself hasn’t ruled it out. Asked whether Republicans should refuse to seat Peltola, he said, “Well, you’re going to have to see what happens.”

Under Senate rules, a losing candidate or a sitting senator can challenge the results of a Senate race. But among the 67 senators whose terms continue past Jan. 3, Democrats hold a one-seat edge: 34 caucus with Democrats and 33 with Republicans.

One of the two people close to the White House said that some members of the party are considering objecting to seating Peltola and El-Sayed if they win. In El-Sayed’s case, the person said, some GOP senators would cite claims — which have been debunked — about the Michigan native’s citizenship and accusations — equally false — that he has ties to terrorist groups.

Such objections around fabricated ties to terrorist groups is “not a valid objection,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “That is not constitutional.”

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court — in Powell v. McCormack — did weigh in on an effort by the House to not seat a member-elect on ethical grounds, not based on vote count or certification. The court ruled in a 7 to 1 decision that the House and Senate may only consider a member-elect’s age, citizenship and appropriate state residency when determining the “qualifications” of that individual to serve and take the oath of office.

The aide said the Senate has a “rare but normal process” for objecting to the seating of a newly elected senator. But bad-faith objections, the aide said, would set off a “mutually assured destruction” dynamic in which “everybody can start objecting to everybody’s certificate.”

Experts in constitutional law and congressional procedure say there is no path to using the January seating process to overturn the voters’ verdict in the midterms. That would take support from both parties or a majority united behind the effort.

Under federal law, states send their certificates of election to the vice president. He presents them to the Senate when it convenes at noon on Jan. 3, the moment outgoing senators’ terms expire. Some have floated the idea that Vice President JD Vance could use his role as the Senate’s presiding officer to try to block a newly elected senator from being seated. Most of the election law scholars and Democratic congressional aides who spoke to MS NOW said such an unprecedented move would be so far beyond the bounds of the law that they don’t expect it to happen.

Nothing in the Constitution, federal law or Senate rules expressly gives the vice president the power to reject certificates sent by the states, the experts said.

“The Senate as a whole is the judge of the returns of its members under the Constitution,” said Bob Bauer, a longtime legal adviser to the Democratic Party who is also involved in bipartisan election-protection programs this cycle. “The Vice President of the United States cannot undermine, single-handedly, the authority of the Senate to determine that that member is properly presented to take the oath and take her seat.”

“I don’t take as a granted that the Senate is inclined to overthrow the republic,” said Justin Levitt, an election law expert at Loyola Marymount University.

Still, the senior Democratic aides and lawyers responsible for war-gaming every scenario are prepared for it. Bauer said the preparation to protect against federal interference “has happened far earlier” this cycle and is “more extensive than ever before.”

There is even less ambiguity in the House.

Democratic lawyers are also preparing for a scenario they don’t expect to happen. In it, House Speaker Mike Johnson fires the House clerk and installs a loyalist who could slow or deny the seating of newly elected members. State election officials have raised that possibility, as has J. Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal appeals court judge. Johnson recently told MS NOW that “of course” he’ll follow the law when asked about the seating of members.

“We’re going to administer the ceremony on January 3 where one takes the oath … it’s a pretty simple process,” Johnson said.

Even if Johnson were to fire the clerk, the House has the authority to overrule the speaker.

Under the Constitution, the terms of every sitting House member expire on Jan. 3. The clerk then presides over the new House until a speaker is elected. The clerk’s first task is calling the roll of members-elect whose states have submitted certificates of election.

“As soon as that happens at noon on January 3, there is no Speaker Mike Johnson — there’s just Mike Johnson, presumably member-elect. Period,” Levitt said. “The people who receive certificates in the states are put on the roll by the clerk.”

And unlike the Senate, the House is governed by a clear federal law on contested races. Under the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969, a losing candidate has 30 days after the state certifies the result to contest it before the Committee on House Administration.

Under the law’s timelines, the review can take months, but the speaker may swear in the certified winner to serve while it plays out. Only twice has a speaker opted to not temporarily seat such a member-elect during the review process.

The White House declined to say whether anyone there has discussed objecting to the seating of newly elected Democrats with Vance or with congressional Republicans. Instead, it pointed to the president’s recent comments baselessly casting doubt on the security and accuracy of American elections.

But Republicans’ willingness to follow Trump’s lead on false claims of a rigged election appears to be faltering as they calculate that the president is more unpopular than ever.

“He will be on an island all by himself,” a former Trump administration official said.

There is no appetite “to play Trump’s game” and block the seating of members in the Senate and House, the former official said. “Nobody is going to say let him vent the way they did in 2021, they will slam the door.”

The post ‘Whether there’s fraud or not’: Trump allies map out post-election fights appeared first on MS NOW.

Across the country, local election officials have been preparing for millions of Americans to take to the polls on November 3rd. As control for Congress hangs in the balance, this year’s midterm elections take place under a cloud of threats, intimidation, and concern about integrity.

And it’s not just about keeping voters safe; poll workers have expressed uncertainty about their own personal safety as political rhetoric over the voting process has gotten more heated.  More than half of local election officials who responded to a 2026 Brennan Center survey are concerned about the safety of their colleagues and staff.

With over 40 million ballots already cast in this midterm election, and with more on the way, election officials — many of whom have been overseeing voting and poll locations for years — are preparing their staff for every possible disruption that could occur next Tuesday.

Election officials, police and community members interviewed by MS NOW in four battleground states all share one common purpose: ensuring safety and security on Election Day. Here’s how:

Genesee County, Michigan

In a conference room in Flint, Michigan, election officials, poll workers, and police from across Genesee County came together recently to stress election safety in a one-of-a-kind “tabletop training,” organized by Sheriff Christopher Swanson.

While there are no specific or credible threats directed at these midterm elections, Swanson created this event along with a preparation playbook to run scenarios — and to ease fears.

Swanson led the police response to a deadly attack at a Church of Latter Day Saints in Grand Blanc Township just over one year ago and said he is taking lessons of preparedness from that day by coming together and creating a plan.

The group discussed every possible “what if” from natural disasters to manmade issues.

“If someone is being confrontational. We are not going to engage with them and even on the smallest level what we deal with every single election and you all know this,” said Domonique Clemons, Genesee County Court Clerk.

Swanson also said the department is on alert for hoax calls and swatting incidents and will take quick action to arrest anyone disrupting voting.  There is also a scenario focused on the transportation of ballots after polls close and clerks have a police escort when they leave the polling place to drop off ballots at a secure location.

“We need to be in communication because what we are hearing and what we are seeing across the country, it’s not just our polling locations. They are watching our movement and they might try to interfere with the elections that way in keeping things in transport from happening,” Clemons said.

Safety and security of clerks and poll workers is a personal issue, especially for Clemons.

“In the two terms of being your county clerk,” Clemons told the group, “I have received direct death threats called into our office, called into my home, we have had bomb threats to our office, I’ve had people show up to my home.”

Swanson told the poll workers he doesn’t take those threats lightly.

“I want to make this crystal clear, anybody who threatens you or your family, your workers or your volunteers we will investigate. If that happens we will hold them accountable, I promise you that.”

And the poll workers tasked with managing a fair election have a message for everyone planning to vote on Tuesday — get out and vote and know that people are watching out for you.

“We want to just make sure at the end of the night everyone goes home safe and everybody has had a chance to vote and everything is balanced like it’s supposed to be,” said Wendy Meinberg, Flushing Township’s County Clerk. “We all just want to go home safe”.

Cuyahoga County, Ohio

This purple state is home to several key races with national implications. As one of the top turnout spots in Ohio, with around 900,000 registered voters, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections knows the process is under the microscope this year. With multiple ways for people to cast their votes, the team is working to ensure every aspect is secure. One of those ways includes a ballot drop box.

“Our ballot drop box is under 24 hour video surveillance. And to reassure people even more they can go to our website and they can actually look at the live feed,” said Mike West, who works in community outreach for the county.

“The ballot box also has special apparatus to keep people from lighting it on fire, and there’s no way to get water into it. It’s sealed. So it’s a very safe method of returning your ballot.”

Just a short drive away at the county warehouse, ballots will be delivered, stored, and secured with several layers of protection including surveillance cameras inside a fenced off area called “the vault.”

The Board of Elections also runs a “Rumor Control Center” to debunk any myths about voting.

“We are still working on dispelling myths about vote by mail ballots not being counted or provisional ballots not being counted, some people really think that we only count those ballots if it’s a close race, and nothing could be further from the truth,” said West.

Cuyahoga County also released an “Election Integrity” series online helping voters from Cleveland to Shaker Heights.

“We wanted to educate everyone about the security of elections, said Jeff Grajewski, who works with the county as an election outreach coordinator.

“We want to make sure that everyone is able to get something at their fingertips. We want to spell it out for you. We want to put it out there visually.”

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

With several key races in the Keystone state, combined with a history of close and tense elections, there is a focus here on the evolving security landscape. The Allegheny County Elections Division typically records some of the largest voter turnout in the state of Pennsylvania and they make sure to staff up for the day.

“On Election Day in Allegheny County, we will have approximately 6,700 poll workers. This is our Super Bowl.” said Jessica Garofolo, Director of Administrative Services.

Allegheny County is the second largest county in the state of Pennsylvania with approximately 915,000 registered voters. As people across the country have expressed concerns over safety on election day, Garofolo and the elections division have planned for many possible scenarios.

“We have had to pivot from simply worrying about physical security on Election Day to worrying about cybersecurity and making sure we have firewalls in place to prevent any type of attack. We also still have to maintain physical security.”

Most importantly, Garofolo says, it’s a team effort. From local police departments to the state house, everyone is involved with the process.

“We work with national partners and state partners, to make sure we’re doing all we can do to protect the vote, protect the voters, protect our poll workers, and protect our staff.

“Our number one priority for any election is to have a safe, secure, free, and fair election,” said Garofolo.

Apache Junction, Arizona

Just outside of Phoenix, Arizona in the shadows of the Superstition Mountains, community leaders are leaving nothing to chance on Election Day. From threats to lawsuits to protests, Arizona has been center stage with election drama for years — but there is a firm line being drawn here in Apache Junction.

Police Chief Michael Pooley says while there are no specific or credible threats, the department has a safety strategy in place and there is one role his officers will not be filling on Election Day.

“Our job is not to be at the polls verifying voter registration, ID, that’s not our job. Our job is to make sure you feel safe to go to the polling sites to drop off your ballot and to do your job as a citizen to vote and to be able to do it securely,” said Pooley.

Pooley says new technology to assist the department will debut on Tuesday, which includes software that connects streams of information — 911 calls, body cam video, crime reports —  into a real time dashboard for their first responders. That dashboard, should it even be required, will help police find the closest officer to the location and give polling place supervisors faster information on how to address the situation in real time.

“Technology for us, it’s a force multiplier,” Pooley said. While he says there are no specific or credible threats in Apache Junction, he wants to ensure every possible scenario is covered and his jurisdiction is safe, adding, “We are going to be ready for whatever comes our way.”

The post 4 locations in 4 key states: How they keep the vote safe appeared first on MS NOW.

The debate over Donald Trump’s proposed “triumphal” arch took a weird turn last month when the president argued, in apparent seriousness, that the monument could serve a national security purpose. This week, two prominent members of the White House Cabinet apparently decided it was time to play along. The Washington Post reported:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin detailed the arch’s potential security features as part of legal filings that the administration submitted ahead of a hearing on Friday. Both officials said Washington faces “continuously evolving” threats and that Trump’s planned 250-foot-tall arch — positioned by the south end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge — would offer a perch to coordinate officials’ security response, deploy snipers and take other steps to defend the region.

“The Arch is a generational national defense opportunity to mitigate these evolving threats,” Hegseth said in his declaration. “It will be utilized as a dual-purpose structure: a major national monument that also incorporates military utility to support Homeland defense.”

This is all rather silly.

In a planning document released last month, the National Park Service conceded the “triumphal arch” that Trump is so desperate to build would cause “adverse effects” to nearby historic properties and monuments if construction advances as planned. But, the administration added, the (wildly unnecessary and legally dubious) project would move forward anyway.

A week later, the campaign to build one of the president’s many vanity projects took a rather farcical turn when Trump said that he planned to convert the 250-foot project into a “top grade military complex” to house drones. In case that wasn’t quite laughable enough, the Republican — who claimed to be acting in response to a “strong request” from unnamed Armed Forces personnel — added that the arch would also feature snipers on the roof, along with “large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, whose congressional district includes the area in question, called the president’s argument “stupid” and “idiotic,” adding, “Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security.”

And therein lay the point. When Trump was worried about the litigation surrounding the White House ballroom vanity project, he shifted his rhetorical focus to argue the project had a national security component. It did not, but someone apparently explained to him that federal courts have traditionally given presidents wide latitude to pursue national security priorities. That it appeared to work with the ballroom seems to have given him the idea of trying to pull the same trick twice.

Two weeks ago, the administration released revised plans for the arch project — which did not include features related to the military — although the White House indicated it would still pursue Trump’s stated goals. The declarations from Hegseth and Mullin were part of that effort.

Meanwhile, as a group of U.S. military veterans move forward with legal efforts to prevent work on the project, the head of the Vietnam Veterans of America said this week that his organization had endorsed construction of the arch based on “inaccurate information” he’d received.

A separate Washington Post analysis found that Trump’s giant project, if constructed, would literally cast a shadow over the John F. Kennedy Memorial, the Military Women’s Memorial and tens of thousands of graves at Arlington National Cemetery, depending on the season and time of day.

Asked about those findings, a White House spokesperson said the 250-foot structure would “enhance the visitor experience” at the cemetery. As someone who’s been Arlington National Cemetery several times, I have no idea what that means.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post A ‘generational national defense opportunity’: Hegseth endorses Trump’s weird arch claims appeared first on MS NOW.

MS NOW’s Nicolle Wallace shared “shocking” new reporting from The New York Times, which she said could show that President Donald Trump is “asleep at the wheel in protecting U.S. national security.”

On Thursday’s “Deadline: White House,” Wallace discussed the Times’ “blockbuster” report about a Chinese businesswoman’s close relationship with Jensen Huang, president and CEO of Nvidia, the world’s most dominant leader in artificial intelligence chips. U.S. officials concluded the woman was a Chinese intelligence asset, according to the report.

“The discovery that Beijing was getting reports from someone with direct access to Mr. Huang, one of the most powerful figures in the A.I. revolution as well as an influential ally of President Trump’s, set off alarms at the White House,” the Times reported.

“What happened next,” Wallace said, “is the stuff of international political scandals.” The Times said Trump was briefed on the intelligence findings but chose not to act. He had “been wary of disrupting Nvidia’s chip sales, which are helping to drive the economy and the stock market, and of further complicating the trading relationship with China,” the report read.

“Donald Trump — the man who claims that no one is tougher on China than he is — does nothing,” Wallace said of the president’s reported inaction. She described “panic among our intelligence agencies as Trump sat by as a Chinese spy got dangerously close to the CEO of America’s most valuable company.”

Nvidia denied that its CEO had been targeted in a spy plot. The company told the Times that “Jensen’s interactions with Ms. Huang are not unusual or unexpected” and that he “talks with thousands of customer executives every year.” The White House, the CIA and the National Security Agency declined to comment, according to the Times.

Wallace also pointed to “close financial ties” between Trump and Nvidia that were described in the report. A person familiar with the matter told the Times that Nvidia donated at least $20 million to Trump’s White House ballroom fund. Earlier this month, Trump disclosed that he bought up to $1.6 million worth of Nvidia stock and sold up to $1 million in August.

Wallace said the report exposed a gap between Trump’s public statements and private behavior.

“Earlier this year, he cited the importance of protecting America’s technological secrets and beating China in the AI arms race as his entire rationale for why AI can’t and should not be regulated ever,” she said.

By that logic, Wallace said, Trump is “setting America up to be a great loser on the world stage, as he imperils U.S. national security in a matter that’s deeply entangled in his own bottom line.”

You can watch Wallace’s full comments in the clip at the top of the page.

The post ‘Asleep at the wheel’: Wallace slams Trump over China spy report involving Nvidia CEO appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge is weighing Former FBI Director James Comey’s request to dismiss new criminal charges he is facing in Washington, D.C., for allegedly transmitting sensitive national defense information and conspiring to disclose it to a reporter.

In a hearing Friday morning, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden heard arguments over Comey’s bid to toss this new case, the third brought against him by the Trump administration in a year.

The arguments were technical, focusing primarily on the statute of limitations for the charges Comey is facing. The new charges were brought exactly 10 years after the alleged conduct. The charges Comey faces carry a 10-year statute of limitations.

“I’m a district judge, I have to be practical,” McFadden said at one point during the arguments, asking pointed questions to both sides on how he should proceed in this situation.

Federal prosecutors charged Comey in Washington, D.C., with unlawfully transmitting national defense information to an unauthorized person and conspiracy to commit that offense. Those two charges, which were brought earlier this month, were unsealed by McFadden on Monday.

According to the charging document, prosecutors allege Comey directed an individual, through one or more co-conspirators, to disclose national defense information to a reporter at a national news publication on Oct. 5, 2016. Lawyers for Comey said it was an “extraordinary step” for the Department of Justice to charge Comey on the last day that the statute would allow.

Comey was charged by criminal information — charges filed by prosecutors — as opposed to an indictment by a federal grand jury in this case. He has not yet entered a plea in this case.

Ephraim McDowell led the legal team representing Comey, who was not present for today’s arguments.

Comey’s team argued that the statute of limitations has run out on the charges the former FBI director is facing. McDowell said the government has run out of time to seek a proper indictment by a grand jury, and that this situation is “hanging over Mr. Comey’s head.”

In response to the government’s argument that time has not elapsed to pursue the new charges and that it should be up to Congress to amend the statute of limitations, McDowell said, “The government is wrong.”

Dustin Farahnak, who argued on behalf of the government, asked the court to consider the timing of the case while they continue to attempt to seek a grand jury indictment. Farahnak said the Justice Department has gathered additional information in the case.

The judge added at the end of the hearing that the government can continue their investigation while he considers his ruling.

“I’m just having my cards on the table,” Farahnak said. “We looked into the law and followed it.”

McDowell revealed that FBI agents have been situated outside of Comey’s home during this investigation. The judge said he would be “extremely frustrated” to learn that there was a raid on Comey’s house while he weighs his ruling, even if the government proceeds with their investigation in the meantime.

McFadden acknowledged that seeking indictments before D.C. grand juries has become more difficult recently, telling counsel, “Grand juries do surprising things.”

At the conclusion of the 90-minute hearing, McFadden did not indicate when he would rule, saying he would take the matter under advisement.

Lawyers representing Comey have argued the case should be dismissed, pointing to the fact that two other federal prosecutors had previously investigated the alleged conduct and declined to bring charges against the former FBI director.

“The information in this case centers on alleged disclosure of classified information to the New York Times (NYT) on October 5, 2016, that was investigated by two separate U.S. Attorneys over the past ten years,” lawyers for Comey’s wrote in a court filing ahead of the hearing. “Both declined to prosecute.”

They also allege the case is “time barred” — that the statute of limitations has already expired because prosecutors charged Comey with the incorrect instrument. They allege that the government had ten years to bring the case “by obtaining a grand jury indictment.” Prosecutors did not secure a grand jury indictment and instead unilaterally charged Comey.

The DOJ has argued Comey’s interpretation of the statute of limitations is “mistaken” and based on “an incomplete statutory reading of the text.”

They also argued Comey’s effort to dismiss the case is “premature,” writing, “this prosecution proceeds currently by an Information, and there is no indictment to be dismissed.”

According to court filings, a lawyer for the DOJ has indicated he was planning to seek a grand jury indictment, but has decided to wait until the motion to dismiss the case was resolved.

These charges mark the third time the Trump administration has prosecuted Comey in roughly the last year.

The Department of Justice first charged Comey with lying to Congress in Virginia last year. Comey pleaded not guilty, but that case was ultimately dismissed after a federal judge found that the sole prosecutor who secured and signed that indictment had been unlawfully appointed.

In April, federal prosecutors in North Carolina charged Comey with threatening the president for posting a photo on social media of sea shells arranged to spell “86 47.” The term “86” is widely used among restaurant workers to mean getting rid of or refusing something, such as an unwanted customer or unavailable menu item. Prosecutors alleged that the photo signaled a threat to President Donald Trump, the 47th president.

Comey has not yet entered a plea in the seashell case and will not do so until at least January.

The post Judge weighs former FBI Director James Comey’s effort to dismiss his new criminal charges appeared first on MS NOW.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer has been criminally indicted after he struck a man with his car while pursuing him in Houston earlier this month, Harris County District Attorney Sean Teare said Friday.

A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, indicted Mario Alberto Morales on a charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon using his vehicle — a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison — for striking Miguel Parra Hernández on Oct. 10.

It is the first such indictment of an ICE officer in Texas. Morales’ attorney did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

Parra Hernández is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who has no criminal record, deportation order or pending immigration proceeding against him, Teare said at a news conference.

ICE officers were investigating Jose Mendoza-Cervantes when Morales struck Parra Hernández, Teare said. Mendoza-Cervantes’ daughter told The New York Times that he died nine years ago after falling from a cliff while fleeing immigration agents near the southern border. She said her father used aliases, including the name that ICE identified as its target during the operation that ended with Parra Hernández being struck. Teare’s office said it has not found evidence that Parra Hernandez and Mendoza-Cervantes were in a vehicle together, reported The Associated Press.

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said Parra Hernández sustained “significant injuries, including multiple fractures to his right leg.”

Body camera footage released by Teare’s office shows Morales pursuing a white car with his vehicle. Surveillance video from a nearby bakery shows Parra Hernández and another person exiting the car and running away. Morales then appears to drive directly at Parra Hernández before hitting him.

In a recording of Morales’ call to 911, also released by Teare’s office, the officer suggested at one point that Parra Hernández was at fault.

“We’re following this guy, trying to pull him over,” Morales tells the dispatcher. “He jumped out of the vehicle. I tried to get around him, and he hit my car.”

Morales was placed on leave days after the incident. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said at the time that it was “standard practice” pending an internal investigation and that it was “not any indication of wrongdoing.”

After the Morales indictment, an ICE spokesperson called the charge “reckless and false” and a “political stunt.”

“This is nothing more than a political stunt by Houston sanctuary politicians. Federal officers acting in the course of their duties can only be investigated by other federal agencies,” the ICE spokesperson said. “Local governments do not have the authority to run such an investigation.”

Though rare, local officials do have the authority to investigate federal agents under certain circumstances. State and local authorities have warned that they have no qualms about investigating federal officers who break the law while carrying out immigration enforcement efforts.

Teare said Morales was hired during an ICE hiring surge in August 2025, and Harris County officials don’t yet know if Morales has training records.

“I can unequivocally tell you that I’ve reviewed thousands of job applications and resumes for law enforcement officers from around this state, and I’m not familiar with a single agency that would have hired this person based on his past,” Teare added, though he declined to provide details. He said he expects Morales to be in custody soon.

Parra Hernández is recovering from his injuries at a rehabilitation facility and remains in ICE custody, Teare said.

“An ICE badge does not give you free rein to injure, kill, or violate the constitutional rights of anyone,” Teare said. “My hope is that this prosecution will do more than just seek justice for the Parra Hernández family and Mr. Parra Hernández. I hope that it also sends a loud and clear message to every ICE officer who feels that they have a free pass to terrorize our streets.”

The post ICE officer indicted after striking man with car during pursuit, prosecutor says appeared first on MS NOW.

House Oversight Committee Democrats on Friday requested financial records and communications from the producer of Kimberly Guilfoyle’s podcast, widening their inquiry into allegations that Guilfoyle, the former U.S. ambassador to Greece, sought money from a Trump donor in exchange for access to the administration.

In a letter to Drew Lynch, executive producer of “The Kimberly Guilfoyle Show,” Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the committee’s ranking member, sought documents tied to the donor, Eric Deters, and to Trump administration officials.

The letter, which was reviewed by MS NOW, says Lynch appears to have known about the “arrangement” between Guilfoyle and Deters as early as January 2025, and that he and Deters discussed the political influence Deters had been promised.

Citing text messages reviewed by Democratic committee staff, the letter says Lynch communicated extensively with Deters, often on Guilfoyle’s behalf “or in furtherance of connecting Mr. Deters with senior Trump Administration officials such as FBI General Counsel Sam Ramer and FBI Director Kash Patel.”

“Additionally, in June 2025, Mr. Deters reminded you about what former Ambassador Guilfoyle described as her and Mr. Deters’s ‘arrangement’ and conveyed to you that Ms. Guilfoyle said you ‘may do some rewarding to some of it,’” Garcia wrote in the letter.

Garcia asked Lynch to respond by Nov. 13.

The letter is the third that Oversight Democrats have sent on the matter since The Wall Street Journal first reported that Guilfoyle, the former fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., asked Deters to pay off her $100,000 credit card bill ahead of her confirmation hearing. Deters told the Journal that he wanted help with Justice Department and IRS matters, but that Guilfoyle never followed through.

Guilfoyle has since left her post after Trump requested her resignation and has not replied to the committee’s outreach for documents issued earlier this month. A lawyer for Guilfoyle told the Journal that his client challenged the messages as inauthentic, and that Deters still owed Guilfoyle “a balance for traveling to and supporting these patriotic events.” In response, Deters filed a defamation lawsuit against Guilfoyle and her legal team.

The letters are aimed at determining whether anyone in the Trump administration’s orbit acted at Guilfoyle’s urging. They also offer another preview of the corruption-focused oversight Democrats plan to pursue if they win back the House in Tuesday’s midterm elections, which would give them control of the committee and its subpoena power.

Democrats on the Oversight Committee plan to aggressively pursue inquiries not “just into the Trump children,” but anyone involved in the “broader Trump crime family, too,” said a committee staffer, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal plans.

Neither Lynch nor the White House immediately responded to MS NOW’s requests for comment.

The post House Democrats widen Guilfoyle pay-for-play probe appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge who has openly sparred with government attorneys throughout the case of a D.C. golf course is launching a formal inquiry into their conduct to determine if they misrepresented President Donald Trump’s plans, which he has publicly announced on social media.

At the end of a two-and-a-half-hour hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said the court could conduct the investigation itself or appoint a special master to do so.

She said a probe would focus on whether Justice Department lawyers have committed any ethical violations during proceedings, including if they have made false statements, withheld testimony or interfered with witness testimony.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and other lawyers representing the Trump administration have repeatedly argued in court that there is no final plan to close and renovate East Potomac — which Trump intends to transform into a championship-style golf course — despite the president’s Truth Social posts earlier this month that have announced it would close on Nov. 15.

Two days ago, Woodward informed the court that the Department of Interior was “working to develop a plan” to close the course — on or around Nov. 15.

The disconnect between the statements in her courtroom and Trump’s statements on social media frustrated Reyes, who repeatedly asked Woodward if the president’s post meant that he was directing the DOI and National Park Service to close the course on that date.

Woodward responded that we could not know what the president meant by the post and could not opine on his choice of words. Reyes was not convinced.

“You are telling me, as the third-highest-ranking official at the Department of Justice … you are saying to me, ‘do not believe the president.’”

In response to today’s hearing, a Justice Department spokesperson told MS NOW, “The Department of Justice will not be deterred from executing on the President’s agenda.”

Throughout the fiery hearing, Reyes questioned DOJ attorneys on if they misled the court about plans for the golf course. When asked when work began on a submission of a renovation proposal to the National Capital Planning Commission, Woodward said there has been consideration of various plans for renovation “for some time now.”

Reyes asked if Woodward was telling her that no DOJ counsel decided to inform the court of plans that had been ongoing for weeks to send a proposal to the NCPC. Woodward responded that he did not recall the court asking a question about whether they were coming up with a plan to send.

“Are you kidding me right now?” Reyes erupted. “Seriously Mr. Woodward, come on.”

While Reyes concluded the hearing with her announcement of an investigation into the DOJ lawyers’ conduct, she emphasized the court has not yet determined they committed any ethical violations.

Reyes has made no secret of her disappointment with how the DOJ lawyers have conducted themselves in the case, in one previous hearing telling them, “You did your absolute worst.”

On Monday, Reyes indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from removing even a single tree from the course in Washington, D.C. She has ordered the government to provide notice of at least 10 business days before any closure or “irreversible modification” to East Potomac Park.

In the scathing 70-page ruling, Reyes scolded the Trump administration for the disparity between Trump’s statements and those of his lawyers.

“Rarely, if ever, has the United States Department of Justice urged a federal court not to believe the sitting President. Not to believe him that a cabinet secretary has ‘developed’ a federal land project. Not to believe him that the secretary’s agency will destroy a historic golf course already on the land. Not to believe him that ‘Restoration work’ will begin ‘IMMEDIATELY!’ Not to believe him that the course ‘will be closed’ for over a year. Not to believe what the President has repeatedly told the American public,” Reyes wrote.

“And yet, here we are.”

The Trump administration appealed that ruling and the case remains pending.

The post Fiery golf course hearing ends with a bang: Judge calls for a probe into government lawyers appeared first on MS NOW.

With Election Day approaching, backlash continues to mount against the top election official in Arizona’s most populous county — a MAGA loyalist who has used his office to promote election conspiracy theories and empower conservative activists.

I’ve homed in on Maricopa County’s Justin Heap in recent months as many Arizonans — including many of his fellow Republican election officials in the Phoenix-area county — have sounded the alarm on the county recorder’s push to give himself and Donald Trump’s allies more power to intervene in Maricopa’s electoral processes. More than half of Arizona’s residents live in the county, meaning any chicanery that occurs there could significantly affect key state races next week.

Some GOP candidates in Arizona think their chances in next week’s elections are bleak, potentially giving someone like Heap — who has encouraged the Trump administration to intervene in the state’s election processes — incentive to meddle.

Amid such concerns, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Arizona chapter has flagged disturbing reports of voters being falsely told by poll workers that they needed to show ID to drop off their mail-in ballots. Arizona law states that voters can show ID when they drop off ballots if they want to speed up the tabulation process, but doing so isn’t required.

In the video below, you can see Heap pushing back against the ACLU’s claim during a sit-down with a Phoenix television station — only to be told that one of the outlet’s reporters experienced the very same thing when trying to drop off a ballot.

Recorder @azjustinheap contradicts himself yet again.

In an interview with a local station, he said pollworkers were not instructing voters they must present ID to vote.

(This is against the law, voters still have the option to drop ballots for themselves and family members in… https://t.co/vwC216PuNE

— The AZ – abc15 – Data Guru (@Garrett_Archer) October 30, 2026

Earlier this year, Heap stood alongside then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a Phoenix press conference, where she said her department — which under Trump has served as a vector for white supremacist propaganda — would ensure that “we have the right people voting.”

It’s rhetoric one might expect to have heard during the height of the Jim Crow era — and Heap was right there. Which is to say, he has given Arizonans no reason to take him at his word on anything he says regarding election integrity.

The post MAGA election official in Arizona tries to downplay disturbing reports about poll workers appeared first on MS NOW.

For advocates of international democracy, Sunday was a day of celebration. Shortly after voters in Serbia ended the 14-year reign of Serbian strongman Aleksandar Vucic, the world also learned that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had won a surprising fourth term, defeating his right-wing rival, Flávio Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro, however, refused to accept the outcome, at which point, things got a little weird.

The right-wing Brazilian, whose father attempted a coup that ultimately sent him to prison, was an unusually controversial candidate, facing allegations of money laundering and tax evasion that led to the confiscation of his passport. Despite those controversies, the Trump administration announced Tuesday that Bolsonaro and his family were being rewarded with U.S. visas, and they arrived in Florida soon after.

The White House’s role in making this happen is still coming into focus. The New York Times reported:

Flávio Bolsonaro, the Brazilian presidential candidate who faces multiple criminal investigations, is staying in Florida on a temporary status that was given following orders by President Trump, and will likely be granted permanent residency later, U.S. officials said. […]

U.S. border agents allowed [Bolsonaro] and his family to enter the United States on what is called parole, usually given for humanitarian reasons, after they landed in Miami on a private jet on Wednesday morning, a U.S. official said that day.

The Times’ report added that it was a White House official who arranged for the private jet.

Donald Trump predictably condemned the Brazilian election as an “embarrassment” and claimed irregularities (for which he offered no evidence), while acknowledging that he and his team gave Bolsonaro “a pass” to enter the country.

So if the reporting is accurate, the sitting Republican president pulled strings and extended special treatment to a suspected foreign criminal, welcoming him to American soil.

This did not escape the attention of Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who are demanding answers from Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Politico reported:

In the letter, shared first with Politico, the Democrats ask Rubio to clarify how the State Department coordinated with other agencies to grant the visa, whether officials were aware of the pending probes against Bolsonaro and the degree to which the State Department and its officials helped Bolsonaro leave Brazil and come to the United States.

“The American people and Congress have a legitimate oversight interest in understanding whether U.S. diplomatic and immigration resources were used to facilitate the travel of a foreign political figure under these circumstances,” the lawmakers wrote. “Transparency is particularly important where the reported events implicate a foreign judicial proceeding, sensitive bilateral relations, and the consistent application of U.S. immigration and diplomatic policies.”

To date, no one in the administration has commented on how the process unfolded or who was ultimately responsible for rewarding Bolsonaro with the kind of shortcuts unavailable to everyone else. Watch this space.

The post Democrats ask the right questions about Trump’s special treatment for Brazil’s Bolsonaro appeared first on MS NOW.

Thirty-five Senate seats will be contested in the 2026 midterm elections. The candidates who triumph will help determine the future of American retirement.

Social Security, the cherished social program providing benefits to about 69 million retired and disabled workers, is nearing a critical funding deadline: If Congress doesn’t step in by the end of 2032, the program’s trust funds will face a shortfall, and benefits will have to be cut by roughly 23%.

If current forecasts hold up, then, the senators sworn into their six-year terms next year will eventually be tasked with extending Social Security’s lifespan. They’ll grapple with the program’s future in an environment very different from the last time Congress reformed the program, in 1983. Widening wage inequality and adoption of artificial intelligence are just the start of the issues to deal with.

Several Senate candidates in both parties have set out their approaches to Social Security’s future. In some cases, their stances are ideologically surprising.

“The stakes are definitely higher because you’re voting on who’s going to vote for Social Security,” Kathryn Anne Edwards, an economist and policy consultant who has drafted proposals to better manage Social Security’s future, said in an interview. “To the extent it’s an election issue, it’s really about picking a person you trust to do the right thing.”

Already, several Senate candidates in both parties have set out their approaches to Social Security’s future. In some cases, their stances are ideologically surprising. Earlier this month, embattled Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas threw his support behind scrapping the payroll tax cap, a measure long a favorite among liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

“I would eliminate the cap altogether,” Marshall said at a Kansas Senate debate last week. His Democratic challenger, Adam Hamilton, has said he would lift the cap but not get rid of it entirely. In Maine, incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins also supports raising the cap — a rare area of agreement with her Democratic opponent, Troy Jackson.

The current payroll tax cap is $184,500, so earnings above that sum aren’t taxed, and it climbs a little higher every year. Adjusting or removing it makes a lot more income eligible for federal taxation. The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, estimates that eliminating the payroll tax cap would generate between $1.5 trillion and $3.5 trillion over a decade, depending on the economic effects. Of course, its effectiveness to remedy the financial shortfall hinges on whether it kicks in sooner rather than later and how much income is subjected to the cap.

In 2020, President Joe Biden quietly endorsed raising payroll taxes on individuals earning above $400,000, keeping in line with his broader pledge not to raise taxes on households below that line. He never seriously pursued it, however, and didn’t revive the idea for his aborted re-election campaign.

The idea of raising the retirement age for millennials and Gen Z has polled poorly in the past. Its popularity is unlikely to improve.

Lobbying groups already are planting seeds for the formidable political fights to come. “These are senators who will be there as the Social Security issue comes to the front burner,” Nancy LeaMond, the chief advocacy and engagement officer at AARP, said in an interview. In the past several months, AARP solicited video and written responses from Senate candidates in Texas, Ohio and New Hampshire about how they would tackle Social Security’s future.

“We think this is going to be a very big issue in 2028 — Social Security, and Medicare, for that matter,” LeaMond said.

Congress used to be a lot more nimble dealing with Social Security. Lawmakers expanded coverage in 1939 to include worker deaths, and again to cover permanent disability in 1956. Before 1975, Congress decided cost-of-living adjustments for benefits, until rising inflation made an annual autopilot a necessity.

The most significant changes came in 1983, when (like today) Social Security was in jeopardy of not paying full benefits. A last-minute bipartisan deal paired a gradual increase of the retirement age (from 65 to 67) with tax increases. Falling birth rates and longer life expectancies among Americans crept into the debate at the time, much as they do now.

I once covered a bipartisan Senate group in 2023 that attempted to solve Social Security’s financial shortfall by drafting an early proposal for a deficit-financed $1.5 trillion investment fund that would eventually become another funding source for the program. It didn’t go far, with Democrats and Republicans alike fearful of being cast as out-of-touch misers, since raising the retirement age on younger adults was on the table as well.

Republicans may pull the age lever again. The idea of raising the retirement age for millennials and Gen Z has polled poorly in the past. Its popularity is unlikely to improve, particularly since many younger Americans believe that Social Security will dry up long before it’s their turn to receive benefits.

The next cliff for Social Security is an opportunity to reimagine the future of retiring. The share of older adults in the American workforce has risen since 2000, in part due to financial pressures from a lack of home care or simply being able to pay bills. Now voters get the chance to elect those who will be in the room when their retirement is up for discussion.

The post The future of Social Security is on the line in the midterms appeared first on MS NOW.

Each week, MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann, co-host of our “Main Justice” podcast, answers legal questions from our audience in our MS NOW Membership exclusive series, “Answers with Andrew Weissmann.”

In light of the volume of audience questions about the midterm elections, including about voting and election procedures, this week Weissmann invited former Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer to join him on the show for an election-focused conversation. Richer, a Republican, oversaw voter registration and other aspects of elections in Maricopa County, Arizona, from January 2021 to January 2025.

In the video above, Weissmann and Richer discuss options for people preparing to vote — plan in advance and go early, they advise — and what to do if voters are concerned they have witnessed harassment or that their ballot isn’t being recorded properly.

Eight tips for people preparing to vote:

• Stay in line if the polls close; you are entitled to cast your vote if you are in line before the closing time.

• Every state is different — know your state’s voting laws (even things like rules on handing out water to people in line).

• Some states require photo ID and some do not.

• If you make a mistake on your ballot, ask for a new one.

• If the machines are down at your polling place, ask for a paper ballot.

• If you run into problems at the polls, report it to a poll worker or call 866-OUR-VOTE.

• Sending armed federal agents, including those from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to election sites is illegal. Federal law and many states’ laws prohibit not only armed federal agents at polling sites but also interference in elections or voter intimidation by any officials or private citizens.

• You are not required to know how to speak, read or write English to vote. The Voting Rights Act guarantees you the right to bring an assister or translator of your choice when voting as long as they are not your employer or a labor union representative.

Become an MS NOW Member to watch all of Weissmann’s answers, get the chance to submit your own questions and explore full episodes of all the MS NOW Membership exclusive series.

The post Stressing about heading to the polls? Here are tips for preparing to vote. appeared first on MS NOW.

This is the Oct. 30, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday.

Joe, when you were in Congress we had a balanced physical budget. What happened that changed that?

— Robert R., Hertford, N.C.

Robert,

When I was in Congress, we balanced the budget four years in a row. That was the first and only time that happened in 100 years. When I left Congress in September 2001, Washington was running a $155 billion surplus. How did we do it? We made tough choices and only paid for programs and weapons systems that the federal government could afford.

After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush and Republicans responded by spending billions more at the Pentagon and protecting the homeland. While that was rational to a degree, it became an excuse to allow bloated defense budgets to explode over the coming years.

Unfortunately, Bush Republicans also joined Democrats to increase entitlement and domestic spending, and hike up funding for every bureaucratic department.

By the end of his presidency, Bush had doubled the national debt, from $5.6 trillion to $11.5 trillion. Barack Obama’s administration added trillions more through sustained deficits, bringing the total to $19.5 trillion.

But no president has run larger deficits and increased the debt more than Donald J. Trump. This is rich because candidate Trump ran promising to balance the budget and to pay down the federal debt. Like most of his other campaign pledges, that proved to be a lie.

Washington has been unwilling to make tough choices. Until Congress and the president find the courage to do so in all areas, we will remain on the road to financial ruin.

Time is running out fast to turn around this crisis, and we can only hope that the next Congress and president get serious about saving our country.

I am a longtime show watcher (you all have become a big part of my morning!) and appreciate all of your excellent contributors, and now I am happy to be a MS NOW Member and receiving your newsletter. I get so frustrated when war crimes are mentioned — Putin, most of all, and now Trump/Hegseth and so many others. Do any of these brutal killers ever get charged? Where is the accountability? I especially worry about the people of Ukraine and [am] heartbroken about the Iranian girls’ school where there should be charges. Thank you.

— Suzy C., Batavia, Ill.

Suzy,

Millions of Americans share your dismay over the savagery unfolding in war zones around the globe. We expect no better from Vladimir Putin after more than four years of his bloody war on Ukraine. We are also concerned about the administration’s callous attack on the Iranian girls’ school — and its refusal to even apologize for a tragedy that could have been avoided.

America needs a foreign policy that is strong and protects our interests around the world, but also remains consistent with American values. Donald Trump and his defense secretary have unleashed a foreign policy that runs counter to everything this country has traditionally said it believes in.

Pete Hegseth needs to go.

If the Democrats take control of the House and/or the Senate this fall, I am worried that they will have such a huge task ahead of them that they will only be able to make minimal progress (especially with Trump still in office) on digging us out of our current situation and will then get blamed for not delivering on a mandate for change. How can the Democrats approach such a situation so the public will trust them with the presidency in 2028?

— Caroline G., Bloomington, Ind.

Democrats need to remain focused on their campaign promises to lower the cost of living for working Americans. They can start by reclaiming Congress’ power over tariffs and then invoking the War Powers Act to limit the president’s ability to launch endless wars with Iran and around the world. Just those two items would go a long way toward reducing inflation at the grocery store and the gas pump.

They should also prioritize affordable housing and give Americans a real shot at providing decent healthcare for their families. Right now, that is an impossible task for too many middle-class Americans.

LETTERS FROM READERS

Not really a question, but I pray we get a blue wave on Nov. 3, which is my birthday. Having a birthday during the first week of November means every six years, either midterms or a presidential election falls on that day. Last time it was 2020, and I did get my wish for Biden to beat Trump. I really enjoy your show and the variety it brings. Residing in Arizona where we did not adopt daylight saving time, I am up at 3 a.m. M-F to watch all of you. Thank you for everything you do to keep this fragile democracy of ours on track.

— Kerry O., Peoria, Ariz.

I just want to thank you and Mika. I have watched you for many years and [am] glad you are steadfast in reporting the truth. God bless you and your co-workers for all you do. Keeping us the America I knew before MAGA.

— Sherrie S., Bowling Green, Ky.

The vice president said that he thinks the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have done a good job for the most part and that people “who screwed up” should face consequences. There is a place he can go to find how to “strike a balance.” It’s called the United States Constitution, and for even more information he could read all the relevant laws passed to re-enforce and clarify the Constitution. The founding fathers PURPOSELY made it hard to detain someone. Hence, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, protecting the individual, due process, privacy and seizure, right to remain silent, double jeopardy, speedy and public trial, impartial jury, right to an attorney, no excessive bail, excessive fines and more.

— Keith M., Stamford, Conn.

I am flabbergasted when I watch a Trump rally clip on TV to see the people behind him just smiling and laughing at the inhumane, incoherent, and despicable things he says. I just don’t understand how they think this is a presidential leader. I would hope most people don’t want an entertainer for their president but rather someone intelligently able to solve problems. And right now, we have a lot of problems. I’m so embarrassed by his shtick. We are becoming a nation that is dumber, sicker, and poorer because of his policies and the elected officials who turn a blind eye to suffering. We should insist that our leaders have integrity and that quality character traits matter.

— Anonymous

I think we need to get election reform; in fact, it should be the first thing they tackle. If they don’t put a cap on campaign spending, no decent person could run. Races like the Texas Senate wouldn’t even be close if the rich and powerful hadn’t poured $500 million into that campaign. I fear we are becoming a dictator-oligarch government.

— Lorraine Z., Trumbull, Conn.

The post Joe Scarborough answers reader questions about the first thing Democrats should do after the midterms appeared first on MS NOW.

The madness of the midterm elections is upon us, and many of us are struggling.  We’re doom-scrolling and compulsively refreshing polling data. We’re losing sleep.

As someone who has hosted a wellness podcast for more than a decade, I’ve been thinking about how to manage this stress — for myself and others. Here are five common misconceptions about how to stay sane in insane times, as well as some workarounds. Please take what works for you and leave the rest.

Misconception No. 1: Self-care is self-indulgent

If you are someone who worries that taking time for yourself is selfish, please know that it’s actually a public service. It can equip you to better respond to a world on fire.

Happiness expert Gretchen Rubin has some advice I love: “Treat yourself like a toddler.” In other words, make sure you eat well and get enough sleep. Engage in the practices that work for you — meditation, exercise, socializing — and do it guilt-free. Not only do you deserve rest, but self-care is also good citizenship.

Here is a super-quick practice that helps to regulate my nervous system year-round: Take three deep breaths. It sounds deceptively simple but can be quite powerful. I especially like “straw breathing”: Deep inhale through the nose, then slow exhale through pursed lips, as if you’re blowing through a straw. For me, the relief is immediate. Repeat as often as necessary.

Misconception No. 2: ‘Acceptance’ means complacency

“Acceptance” can be a tricky term.  It means acknowledging what is happening — in the world and in your own mind — as a first step toward taking action. It’s hard to fix a problem if you aren’t seeing it clearly. So instead of wasting energy being at war with reality, accept it, then act.

Another practice that might help comes from the eminent meditation teacher Joseph Goldstein. Next time you’re in the throes of anger, anxiety or another difficult emotion, drop these words into your mind: “It’s OK.” This doesn’t mean that everything is OK. Instead, it means that it’s OK to feel whatever you’re feeling right then. When confronted with difficult emotions, many of us reflexively self-medicate (with, say, alcohol or shopping). The radical move is to feel your feelings, notice that they come and go, and make a sane choice on the other side.

Misconception No. 3: ‘Surrender’ means resignation

“Surrender” is another term that can be tricky. If acceptance is seeing things clearly, then surrender is recognizing what is in your control and what is not. It’s easy to hear surrender as a synonym for resignation or passivity, but it’s simply a way to conserve your energy for the areas where impact is genuinely possible.

Different traditions have ways of describing this. In Stoicism, they talk about “controlling the controllables.” In Buddhism, it’s “non-attachment to results.” AA has its serenity prayer. The core idea is that you can work hard on issues that matter to you while also recognizing that, in the end, the results are largely out of your control.

Practice: Next time you notice yourself in an anxiety spiral, use it as a moment to inquire. Is there a useful action I can take right now? If not, maybe just drop this word into your mind: “Surrender.” This move has saved me a lot of unnecessary suffering.

Misconception No. 4: I need my anger in order to stay in the fight

Given  the corruption, the Iran war, the ballroom — it’s perfectly understandable that many of us find Trump 2.0 infuriating. Further, anger has its uses. It can help you identify problems and can be motivating. In my experience, however, when I am operating on uncut outrage, I inevitably burn myself out.

Try this: In moments of anger or anxiety, see if you can tune into what’s beneath these emotions. When you dig, you will likely find caring. Or, to use a less comfortable term, love. Love for your country, for your family, for yourself. For me, love is the cleaner burning fuel. Let it propel you forward.

Misconception No. 5: To stay informed, I need to compulsively check the news

No question, the stakes are high in these midterms. But does this mean you need to doomscroll in every free moment? In my opinion, no.

So how do you draw the line between staying informed and driving yourself crazy? It’s both highly individual and also more art than science. I recommend doing some personal exploration. How much news can your nervous system metabolize before you start to glitch? If you go for more than two straight hours, do you find yourself typing in all-caps on Bluesky? My friend Sebene Selassie, a meditation teacher, has a policy of “no news before noon.” (Sorry, Joe and Mika!) My own policy is to not look at my phone for the first and last hours of the day.

A practice: Savor the good stuff. The people who design social media algorithms benefit from keeping us in a perpetual state of fear and outrage because those emotions keep us scrolling. If you put your phone down and step outside, you’ll see tons of good stuff. People raising children, volunteering and engaging in small acts of decency. Tuning into this doesn’t negate the world’s problems, but it does put them in a larger frame. Personally,  I like to take a warm shower and make a list of all the things that I am grateful for from the day. I find it retrains my mind to scan for the positive.

If you’re looking for constructive ways to consume news, I recommend the MS NOW membership app. It provides both news and tools to regulate your nervous system, so that you can then take the appropriate action. To me, that is a solid recipe for citizenship: Information, regulation, activation. Remember: The world is insane, but you don’t have to be.

The post The midterms are stressing us all. Here are five ways to calm down. appeared first on MS NOW.

As 2026 got underway and political observers looked ahead to competitive Senate races, few gave Kansas a second glance. The conventional wisdom was that Republican Sen. Roger Marshall would cruise to re-election, simply because he represents a red state that hasn’t elected a Democratic senator since 1932.

With just days remaining in the midterm cycle, it’s safe to say things haven’t quite gone according to plan for the GOP incumbent.

There’s no shortage of reasons why polls show Marshall struggling. From questions about his residency to an unpaid bakery bill, from his ongoing campaign finance controversy to the strength of the Rev. Adam Hamilton’s Democratic candidacy, the incumbent senator with a thin record is at the center of a toss-up race that few would’ve predicted in the recent past.

But I’ve long argued that the turning point in the Kansas race came in early September when Kansans learned that Marshall garnished paychecks and pushed arrest warrants when his patients couldn’t afford their medical bills during his time as a physician in private practice. There’s ample evidence to suggest local voters heard the story and considered it important.

This, as much as anything else, stuck. It was around that point when some polls started showing Hamilton ahead, especially after the Democratic campaign seized on the issue in its advertising.

As the race nears its end, the story continues to haunt Marshall in new and potentially harmful ways. The New York Times reported:

A former patient of Senator Roger Marshall, Republican of Kansas, on Thursday filed a class-action lawsuit against him and his former medical practice, contending that he charged illegally high interest rates in pursuing patients over outstanding bills. […]

The lawsuit, filed in Kansas state court, focuses on the 18 percent interest rate that Mr. Marshall and the medical practice he co-owned, Heartland OBGYN, often charged patients.

When the story about his debt collection practices first came to the fore, Marshall repeatedly said his business practices were “very common,” but a few weeks ago, The Kansas City Star reported that an analysis of medical debt lawsuits in the Kansas court system “found that although it’s not uncommon for hospitals and clinics across the state to sue patients, the 18% annual interest rate Marshall applied to unpaid bills was by far the highest of the roughly 150 medical practices whose public records were reviewed by The Star.”

The report added that in reviewing thousands of court documents, the newspaper “found no other medical providers that charged annual interest at 18% or any other specified rate above 12%.”

The Star also spoke to the lawyer who had represented the Kansas Republican, and he said it was Marshall’s office that was responsible for determining how much interest to charge patients on unpaid bills.

The newspaper gave the senator and his campaign team multiple opportunities over a two-week period to respond to questions about the story. They declined.

Three weeks later, Marshall’s practices are now the basis for a new lawsuit, alleging the interest rates he charged were “egregious” and potentially at odds with state law, which typically limits medial interest rates to 15%.

The Times’ report added that the lead plaintiff in the newly filed class-action suit is Meischa Zimmerman, whom Marshall’s practice sued in 2009 for $3,596 over debt related to the delivery of her daughter by cesarean section.

“She was arrested three times for missing court dates related to the case,” the article added, “once while she was eight-months pregnant and at home with her 2-year-old daughter.”

It’s not yet clear whether other patients have joined with Zimmerman in the case, and a spokesperson for the Republican incumbent did not immediately respond to the Times’ request for comment. Watch this space.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Kansas’ Marshall faces yet another mess: A class-action lawsuit from a former patient appeared first on MS NOW.

MS NOW’s Joe Scarborough condemned Donald Trump for flying into a “crazed rage” after the president called a Reuters reporter “disgusting” and “a sick guy” for asking about the cancellation of his campaign visits to Kansas and Iowa. The MS NOW host said the president’s behavior should trouble both the White House and the American public.

On Thursday, just days before the midterm elections, the Republican National Committee announced that Trump’s planned weekend rallies in Kansas and Iowa, two states that have become increasingly competitive, were off.

“With Republicans in a strong position in Kansas and Iowa, previously planned in-person rallies in those states will no longer take place as scheduled,” the RNC said in a statement. Instead, the party said Trump would hold phone rallies in nearly 20 states to reach more voters.

However, on Friday, the president reversed course. A White House official told MS NOW that Trump is “expected” to stop in Iowa and Kansas on Sunday and said the rallies were canceled and then rescheduled to accommodate his telerallies.

Before the rallies were put back on the schedule, Reuters reporter Jacob Bogage asked Trump if the cancellations were because he was “sick of traveling.” In response, Trump berated Bogage and said he was “sick” to ask that question.

“You know what the reason is? I don’t feel I have to go to Kansas,” Trump said on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews. “You’ve been following me for two weeks. I feel perfect. You are disgusting. Put yourself in shape. You look like hell.”

On Friday’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough said Trump’s stated reason for canceling the rallies didn’t match what he had heard from his sources.

“What he’s saying about canceling and why he canceled is a lie,” the MS NOW host said. “Yesterday afternoon, I got a call from Republican operatives who said, and I am quoting them: ‘This race has been gone for a week.’ That’s what Republicans are saying.”

Scarborough then turned to Trump’s exchange with Bogage, saying the president’s angry response to a basic question should concern his aides and the public. He said that Trump’s behavior should be “troubling for people inside the White House and for Americans.”

“People are asking him very simple, basic questions, and he’s just flying off in an absolute rage,” Scarborough said. “This has been happening now for a month or two, where a basic question any other president would answer, this one flies off in this crazed rage.”

“You just kind of worry if he’s OK,” he added. “I’m worried about him.”

You can watch Scarborough’s full comments in the clip at the top of the page.

The post Joe Scarborough slams Trump’s ‘crazed rage’ at reporter: ‘I’m worried about him’ appeared first on MS NOW.

American culture has always prized macho heroes who solve problems with their fists. John Wayne didn’t talk down the bad guys. Rocky Balboa settled his troubles in the ring. John Shaft pulled a gun, got the girl and looked good doing it. Sherlock Holmes — literature’s most celebrated thinker who prized his wits over his knuckles — still ended up grappling with Moriarty at Reichenbach Falls. Even America’s premier spaceman, the perfectly coiffed, rule-breaking, heart-taking Captain James T. Kirk of the USS Enterprise, loved a good fist fight.

But Patrick Stewart was the king of the nerds, the hero who didn’t need to out-muscle the room. From “Star Trek: The Next Generation” to “X-Men,” the slim, balding English Shakespearean actor shattered the stereotype that the science fiction — or comic book hero lead — had to be a muscle-flexing, gun-toting, womanizing cad. He could be a futuristic French starship captain, his commanding voice booming, “Make it so.” Or a paralyzed mutant whose penetrating, kindly stare made us believe that, no matter what, things under his watch would be OK.

When Shatner’s Captain Kirk was done, nobody expected Stewart’s Jean-Luc Picard to be the man in the center seat. Reportedly, even the creator of the franchise, Gene Roddenberry, had doubts and had to be talked into hiring the stage actor.

Stewart died Wednesday at his home in Los Angeles at 86, and the world suddenly feels a little less sure of that.

When William Shatner’s Captain Kirk was done, nobody expected Stewart’s Jean-Luc Picard to be the man in the center seat on the Enterprise-D. Reportedly, even the creator of the franchise, Gene Roddenberry, had doubts and had to be talked into hiring the stage actor.

Picard read poetry in a smooth baritone, drank Earl Grey, fed his goldfish and sent the cowboy diplomacy back to the previous generation. When the Enterprise faced a crisis, the question wasn’t who would shoot first. It was who would think hardest, and who would be brave enough to be wrong out loud.

Stewart’s toughest scenes proved the point. In the episode “Chain of Command,” Picard, who’s been captured, is tortured for days and told to say he sees five lights when there are only four. He won’t. Stewart played it with a quiet, shaking defiance, and it remains one of the great portraits of courage in television, with not a phaser in sight.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Stage giant Patrick Stewart, of ‘Star Trek’ and 'X-Men' fame, dies at 86. –

— Phil Lewis (@phillewis.bsky.social) 2026-10-29T19:48:50.486Z

Stewart made us believe in the alpha diplomat who preferred negotiation to confrontation but was no less a hero and icon than Captain Kirk

I’ll confess I never got Kirk’s “Star Trek” and haven’t seen most of those episodes. That was my father’s science fiction. But I have seen every hour of Stewart’s “Next Generation,” and it’s a big reason I’m a science fiction aficionado, comic book fan and author. I go to comic book conventions and book expos now, but I started with Star Trek conventions, and I still order my tea like Captain Picard: “Earl Grey, hot.”

As Professor Charles Xavier in “X-Men,” Stewart gave us a mentor in a wheelchair whose power was based not only on his mind but on his endless patience and hopefulness. The “X-Men” were, at heart, a story about outsiders asking whether the world will make room for them, and Stewart’s Xavier answered with a steady hand and a warm gaze. Opposite his real-life friend Ian McKellen’s Magneto, he helped give comic book movies one of its defining rivalries: two old friends who loved the same persecuted people and disagreed about how to save them. Many fans and critics have long heard echoes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X in their argument, and Stewart never let Xavier’s patience soften into passivity.

I’ll confess I never got Kirk’s “Star Trek.” That was my father’s science fiction. But I have seen every hour of Stewart’s “Next Generation,” and it’s a big reason I’m a science fiction aficionado, comic book fan and author.

In “Logan,” he gave us a Xavier whose great mind was failing him, a performance that is hard to watch given what we know now about his struggle with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body dementia. In it, the proud, knighted Shakespearean actor is willing to be so raw, so vulnerable, so damaged onscreen, realistically fighting the ravages of age and yet clinging on to what heroism he could. He was ailing, and still giving us the best Professor X he could.

Stewart’s legacy is bigger than his performances. He spoke openly about the abuse he witnessed in his childhood home and was a passionate advocate for survivors of domestic violence. In announcing his death, his family’s statement recalled his work for refugees, veterans’ mental health, human rights and animal welfare, including his cherished foster pit bulls. The gentleness we saw on screen was not an act.

His velvety voice at the beginning of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” telling us that our adventures would take us “where no one” has gone before — not where no “man” has gone — signals a new future where everybody is included: men and women, the bookish, the balding, the thinkers, the disabled, the negotiators, the kindhearted, the patient, the different.

Much of science fiction imagines a humanity that has gotten past its worst instincts, and Stewart’s Picard embodied that promise. His authority came from his character, not conquest. For a generation of readers and writers who wanted to push the genre to imagine something bigger than the old model of heroism, Stewart gave us that permission.

The post Patrick Stewart played the kind of heroes we needed — and still need appeared first on MS NOW.

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

* With time running out in South Carolina’s unexpectedly competitive U.S. Senate race, the Senate Democrats’ top super PAC is finally investing in the race. Politico reported that the Senate Majority PAC is spending $750,000 on digital ads, hoping to boost Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, in her race against incumbent Republican Sen. Darline Graham.

The investment comes on the heels of the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC spending even more in the hopes of rescuing the appointed GOP incumbent. In fact, MS NOW reported that there’s a growing sense of “panic” in Republican circles about the state of the race in South Carolina, fueled in large part by doubts about Graham.

* In Ohio’s gubernatorial race, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy’s notorious attack ad is finally leaving the state’s airwaves. According to his campaign, the commercial is rotating out after completing its intended run, rather than being pulled for having backfired.

* In Kansas’ U.S. Senate race, The Washington Post and George Mason University conducted a poll that found the Rev. Adam Hamilton with an unexpectedly large nine-point advantage over incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, though the Post’s article on the survey results emphasized at great lengths that registered Democrats “were more than twice as likely as registered Republicans to complete the survey after answering an interviewer’s call.”

Nevertheless, Hamilton continues to pick up endorsements from notable Kansas Republicans: Former Sen. Sheila Frahm, who briefly held then-Sen. Bob Dole’s seat in 1996, announced Thursday that while she’d backed Marshall in the past, she’s supporting Hamilton this year.

* Donald Trump was scheduled to headline campaign rallies in Kansas and Iowa on Sunday. On Thursday, the president’s team reversed course and canceled the events. On Friday morning, the White House appears to have reversed course again and resurrected the events.

* In Maine’s U.S. Senate race, outgoing Democratic Gov. Janet Mills has finally endorsed fellow Democrat Troy Jackson in his race against incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, although she did so in the most indirect way possible, urging Mainers to “vote for Democrats up and down the ballot.”

* And if it seems this year’s midterms have cost an enormous amount of money, it’s not your imagination. The New York Times reported this week, “This is officially the most expensive political advertising cycle ever, according to AdImpact, which monitors ad spending. Presidential cycles are typically more expensive than midterm ones, but not this time: The previous record was recorded in the 2023-2024 cycle, when AdImpact recorded $11.2 billion in ad spending. That was eclipsed [Monday], as now $11.21 billion of ads are booked or reserved, the firm said.”

The post Friday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.30.26: Democrats invest in South Carolina’s Senate race appeared first on MS NOW.

A North Korean unit was likely behind the hack that impacted more than $6 billion on Binance, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency exchange, according to a U.S.-based blockchain intelligence firm.

Binance said it worked with blockchain partners to freeze roughly $3 billion in affected assets. It said Friday that it was beginning to recover assets for users.

The cryptocurrency exchange said deposits were unaffected, while withdrawals have been suspended and are expected to resume in the next day or two. It said it will cover all losses.

The company said on X that an initial investigation suggested the incident may have involved a compromised laptop, but that a subsequent investigation uncovered additional “points of breach.”

Blockchain intelligence firm TRM, in a post on its website Thursday, attributed the attack to TraderTraitor, which it described as North Korea’s elite hacking unit. “We make this judgment with high confidence,” the firm said.

“An attacker moved approximately USD 6.36 billion out of Binance wallets on ten blockchains, most of it in about 20 minutes,” TRM said. That would make the hack the largest cryptocurrency theft on record, it said.

In February last year, another cryptocurrency exchange, Bybit, suffered a $1.5 billion hit when it was hacked. The FBI said North Korea and TraderTraitor were responsible for the hack.

“Several features of this attack match earlier North Korea-linked heists, including the Bybit hack,” TRM said.

Blockchain analysis company Chainalysis also believed the Binance hack was “likely done by DPRK group TraderTraitor,” its co-founder and CEO Jonathan Levin wrote on X. DPRK stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea’s official name.

Asked about the potential ties to North Korea, a Binance spokesperson said only that the company is “working closely with our law enforcement partners to confirm the identity of the criminals and bring them to justice.”

Experts say North Korea has turned to crypto hacking and other illicit cyber activities as a source of badly needed foreign currency to support its troubled economy and fund its nuclear program in the wake of tough U.N. sanctions and other difficulties.

In December 2022, South Korea’s spy agency said North Korean hackers had stolen an estimated $1.1 billion in cryptocurrency and other virtual assets in the past five years, more than half of it in 2022 alone. It said North Korea’s capacity to steal digital assets was considered among the best in the world.

Changpeng Zhao founded Binance in 2017. In 2023, he pleaded guilty to a felony linked to failing to prevent money laundering on the platform, and stepped down as the company’s CEO. President Donald Trump pardoned Zhao last year.

Zhao posted Thursday on X that “User funds are safe!” but added that the theft “does look like a hack on Binance.” He added that while he doesn’t manage Binance anymore, “as a shareholder, I expect all user funds will be fully covered.”

The hack, meanwhile, also raises questions about why stronger approval controls were not in place, said Kok Tin Gan, co-founder and CEO of cybersecurity firm NyxLab.

“This looks like one signature that gave the attacker a never-expiring, full-access token to a Binance hot wallet,” he said, referring to cryptocurrency wallets that hold users’ “private keys,” or unique authorizations, digitally and which are connected to the internet.

Binance said on X it had “found no evidence of any wallet private key leak” and that the company would release more technical details when its probe is complete.

The post Blockchain intelligence firms link North Korea to $6.3B hack on Binance appeared first on MS NOW.