According to Donald Trump’s version of events, late last week his own team encouraged him not to celebrate higher gas prices. The president ignored their advice.

At a Saturday night campaign rally in Georgia, Trump spent quite a bit of time bragging that oil and gas companies were “making a fortune” as a result of higher 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. We’re making a freaking fortune.’”

MaddowBlog routinely shines a light on instances when Trump tries to deceive the public, but in this case, the Republican had a point: Big Oil really is making a freaking fortune, thanks in large part to price spikes tied to the war with Iran, which the president started eight months ago but doesn’t know how to end. The New York Times reported:

The war with Iran has been very lucrative for American oil companies, which have earned more than $130 billion in profit as people pay much higher prices for gasoline, diesel and other fuel.

That is a conservative estimate based on the performance of more than 50 large U.S. oil and gas companies, most of them producers or refiners, in the six months from April through September. It does not reflect profits earned in March, the first month of the war, or in October.

According to the Times’ analysis, over the same period of time last year, these same energy companies collectively earned $47 billion less.

By his own admission, Trump thinks this is great news, telling the public that “we” are making an enormous amount of money. The trouble is, “we” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.

It’s true that the U.S. is producing a lot of oil, and it’s also true that higher prices are generating massive oil industry profits. But because the number of Americans who benefit from oil industry profits is very small, few are likely to applaud the ongoing hit to their wallets.

That said, when the president uses the word “we,” there’s also reason to believe he’s being rather literal. Congressional Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee released data this week showing that Trump personally owns oil and gas stocks, which have added as much as $35.8 million to his personal wealth this year.

That same Joint Economic Committee report added, “In 2026, over 94% of his oil and gas stock purchases occurred after Trump started his war in Iran. In total, from March 2026 through August 2026, Trump purchased as much as $17.5 million of oil and gas stocks.”

Keep such details in mind the next time the president declares, “We’re making a freaking fortune.”

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump gets one thing right: Big Oil really is making a ‘freaking fortune’ appeared first on MS NOW.

In any election cycle, it’s common for candidates, officials and party leaders to save their strongest message for what’s known as a “closing argument” — a phrase the political world borrows from trial lawyers. After months of speeches, debates, advertisements, interviews and countless interactions with voters, this is the final opportunity for political players to put their best foot forward and summarize why they deserve the public’s support.

Donald Trump has spent quite a bit of time on the campaign trail lately, and I’ve heard his closing message several times. And while I’m certain the president wants voters to know something as they cast their ballots, I’m not at all sure what that is.

The Atlantic’s Jonathan Lemire summarized the problem this way:

Modern political history offers few examples of closing arguments that appear more out of touch, self-defeating, or downright bizarre than what Donald Trump has offered his fellow Republicans ahead of next week’s midterm elections.

The Democratic message, as articulated by Barack Obama among others, is relatively straightforward: Trump and Republicans took power and made things worse. A Democratic-led Congress can serve as a check on White House abuses, hold the corrupt accountable and push policies that would help get the country back on track.

Trump’s message is … harder to nail down.

After watching his final-week rallies and reading his social media messages, it’s clear that the president cares a great deal about Republican Sen. Jon Husted’s buttocks. And cognitive tests. And the oil industry’s profits. And golf courses in Washington, D.C. And his weird attempts to give artificial intelligence a new name.

It’s equally clear that Trump desperately wants Americans to hate Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and fear transgender Muslim immigrants who believe in communism, and who apparently want to take hamburgers away.

Does the Republican president have any policy priorities or a vision for the final two years of his term? Well, no, but he has a lot of thoughts about Bill Maher (the target of Trump’s single longest online post since launching his own social media platform), White House renovations and why it would be awesome if New Mexico changed its name.

“Many Republicans, and even some in Trump’s orbit, don’t quite get it,” The Atlantic’s Lemire added. “What has happened, they ask, to the instincts of the man who authored two of the most improbable victories in American political history?

“Trump’s superpower was his intuitive understanding of what motivated his supporters. Many Republicans privately tell me that he’s lost that feel. Trump now lives, they think, in a gilded bubble, palling around with billionaires, oblivious to — and, even worse, uncaring about — the problems facing so many voters,” he said.

There’s already ample speculation about whom the White House will blame if Democrats fare well next week. Whether Trump is prepared to acknowledge his own role in crisscrossing the nation, peddling weird absurdities that only he seems to care about, remains to be seen.

The post At the finish line, Trump’s closing argument in the midterms is a muddled mess appeared first on MS NOW.

With time running out in the election cycle, JD Vance participated in a primetime town hall on Fox News, which was largely unremarkable except for one unexpected exchange.

A local college student told the vice president that the right routinely tells young people to get married and have children but that conservatives have failed to acknowledge how financially difficult this is for many. She asked, “So my question is, how does the right, and yourself, expect us to start families young when the average price of a home in America now costs more than $415,000, which just feels out of reach for us?”

It’s worth emphasizing for context that the question came from a young woman who identified herself as the vice president of her university’s Turning Point USA chapter. That is, Vance wasn’t confronting a political opponent; the question came from someone inclined to agree with the Trump White House.

Almost immediately, the Ohio Republican demonstrated the kind of political instincts that have made him famous.

Q: How do you expect us to start families young when the average price of a home feels out of reach?JD VANCE: I want to point out that I've only gotten one question about Jon Husted's ass

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-30T01:28:44.964Z

“I want to point out that I think that I have been asked four or maybe five questions by my count,” the vice president began. “I have only been asked one question about [Republican Sen.] Jon Husted’s ass — and it was by [Fox News’] Jesse Watters.”

So, during a nationally televised event, a young conservative voter asked a sincere question about one of the most pressing issues facing her generation, and Vance’s first thought was to make a joke about a senator’s backside.

It’s impossible to say just how many young voters watching at home were amused by this clumsy attempt at humor, but it seems likely the number was small.

It only got worse when Vance actually tried to answer the question with some substance.

“I think we have to take stock of the fact that the reason why housing exploded in the United States of America is in part because we allowed 20 million illegal aliens into our country to buy homes that ought, by right, go to American citizens,” the vice president argued.

Except that’s absurd. Vance’s statistic is wildly inflated and totally at odds with actual data — the idea that 20 million undocumented immigrants have the resources to buy up American real estate is nonsensical. (Last fall, he similarly complained to Fox News about importing “more and more low-wage servants” from other countries. How “low-wage servants” can afford to purchase homes has never been clear.)

The vice president went on to say, “Another reason why housing got too expensive in this country is because we allowed homes to be bought up by Wall Street and foreign investors.”

Unlike the rest of his response, this actually made some sense, though it touched on a problem Vance neglected to mention: Congress approved a bipartisan housing bill earlier this year that was designed to address the very problem he referred to. President Donald Trump, however, refused to sign it as part of a tantrum over a voter suppression proposal that he wanted but couldn’t have. (The housing bill, thankfully, became law anyway.)

This exchange didn’t have to be so politically messy for the vice president, but his unerring political instincts won out in the end anyway.

The post Pressed on affordability at town hall, JD Vance says all the wrong things appeared first on MS NOW.

After months of speculation about Democrats recruiting retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan in Alaska, The New York Times uncovered credible evidence to suggest that the allegations have merit.

To put it mildly, the GOP reactions have fallen somewhere between hair-on-fire apoplexy and unbridled rage. Donald Trump, in particular, has spent recent days in total hysterics, demanding that former Rep. Mary Peltola be, among other things, prosecuted for crimes the president failed to identify. (Peltola on Thursday again denied having had knowledge of the alleged scheme, saying she’s “not interested in tricking voters.”)

But of particular interest was the reaction from Gov. Mike Dunleavy. On Wednesday, the Alaska Republican announced that he had ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties, and on Thursday he went even further. Axios reported:

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) suggested Thursday the state could withhold certification of the U.S. Senate election results if Democrat Mary Peltola wins.

Withholding certification could complicate Peltola’s path to the Senate, as Republicans investigate allegations that Democrats recruited a candidate with the same name as GOP incumbent Dan Sullivan.

During a NewsNation interview, the governor hedged when asked if he was prepared to certify the results, even if his preferred candidate loses. “We’re going to ensure that we aren’t going to send a scam to Washington,” Dunleavy said.

In other words, with only a handful of days remaining before Election Day, the state’s sitting governor publicly declared that even if Alaskans back the former congresswoman, he may not be prepared to accept the will of the voters.

That, in and of itself, is a radical move that puts a thumb on the scale. Governors are not supposed to effectively tell their state’s electorate, “Vote how you want, but the results might not count.”

But just as notable is the fact that the partisan outrage is wildly inconsistent with the alleged offense.

It’s more than fair to argue that ballot-stacking is underhanded campaign mischief. But it’s equally fair to note that it’s a common tactic, employed by both parties, going back generations.

As for the legality, the Times also reported, “Ballot-stacking strategies are common in politics and generally considered legal, if misleading. Republicans engaged in the tactic in Alaska this year, too, trying to prop up Democratic candidates in the Senate primary to siphon votes from Ms. Peltola.”

What we’re left with is a story in which Republicans appear to be engaging in performative outrage, not in response to a genuine scandal, but in response to polls showing them behind.

The post Alaska governor floats radical new threat in response to ballot-stacking allegations appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Good news on growth, bad news on inflation: “The pace of price increases stepped up in September, keeping inflation well above the Federal Reserve’s target, while the economy grew faster than expected in the third quarter, according to Commerce Department reports Thursday.”

* That we knew this was coming doesn’t make it any easier to swallow (or inhale): “President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration is ‘terminating’ a Biden-era rule that aimed to cut planet-warming emissions of methane from oil and gas drilling. Trump said during a campaign rally in Texas that the change would save companies and consumers billions of dollars and unlock 210 million barrels of oil. That’s equivalent to about 10 days of U.S. petroleum consumption.”

* The obvious call: “A federal judge has denied the Trump administration’s request for an emergency order that would have forced California to set aside mail ballots from more than 20,000 registered voters whom the Department of Homeland Security has identified as ‘likely’ noncitizens.”

* Another heartening ruling: “Chronically ill people on Medicaid won’t be bound by new work requirement rules that the latest Trump administration guidance requires in order to qualify for ‘medically frail’ exemptions, a federal judge ruled Thursday.”

* The White House’s pal in Pyongyang wants attention again: “North Korea launched a barrage of ballistic missiles toward its eastern waters Thursday, South Korea’s military said, days after the North threatened to resume front-line propaganda loudspeaker broadcasts and deploy new weapons along the rivals’ tense border. The launches also followed leader Kim Jong Un’s surprise weekend visit to China, the North’s main ally and economic pipeline, to push for greater cooperation.”

* Putting the government back together again is going to be a dramatic undertaking: “President Donald Trump has overseen the departure of about 1 in every 5 government workers since the start of his second term, a faster and deeper overhaul than under any recent predecessor, a Washington Post analysis found. By some metrics, Black people — who have historically made up a larger portion of government employees compared with their share of the population — were hit hardest, The Post found.”

* Trump doesn’t often surprise me, but I’ll confess I didn’t see this latest rhetorical trend coming: “Trump has long had a penchant for complimenting — or disparaging — the physical appearances of his allies and enemies alike. But a new analysis by The Washington Sun shows that Trump has referenced physical appearance almost three times as much in the past year as he did during the same period in the 2016 campaign.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Thursday’s Mini-Report, 10.29.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

If you spend enough time paying attention to political messaging, you’ll inevitably hear about “dog whistle” politics. The idea is straightforward: Just as actual dog whistles can only be heard by canines, officials and candidates often use coded language to deliver subtle messages to targeted audiences in ways that are not immediately obvious to everyone else.

Donald Trump and his allies have been using these rhetorical tactics quite a bit lately.

On Wednesday afternoon, for example, the official “war room” account for the president’s political operation published an item to social media that read, “Which way Western Man?” The typical person might not have given this much thought, but it’s quite likely that fascists recognized the phrasing immediately.

Last year a Newsweek report supplied the relevant context after Trump’s Department of Homeland Security pushed a similar message:

The Trump administration has been accused of quoting a white supremacist who was backed by a Neo-Nazi group, as part of its social media campaign to recruit immigration enforcement agents.

In a post shared to X on Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said “Which way, American man?”, a quote appearing to reference Which Way, Western Man, a 1978 book by the avowed white supremacist William Gayley Simpson, who argued Hitler was right and Jews must be killed.

The post from the president’s official “war room” account came three weeks after Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin published an item of his own via social media that accused the left of trying to “vandalize the demographics of America.”

For some generous observers, it might be tempting to give the Republican administration the benefit of the doubt, but there’s also a track record to consider. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

The posts have referred to neo-Nazi literature, ethnic cleansing and QAnon conspiracies, mused about deporting nearly a third of the U.S. population, and promoted lyrics from an anthem bellowed by the far-right militants of the Proud Boys.

Their authors are not on society’s fringe. They are in the offices of the White House and the departments of Homeland Security and Labor, using official government accounts.

The article highlighted several messages, including one from January in which the White House and DHS jointly posted a recruitment ad for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The message began, “WE’LL HAVE OUR HOME AGAIN.”

It wasn’t long before observers noted this same phrase is the name of a song, which, as the Times noted, was written by members of a self-described “pro-White fraternal order” and has been embraced by white nationalist groups.

To be sure, administration officials have repeatedly denied that they’re trying to send signals to right-wing extremists and have insisted that the rhetorical similarities are coincidental.

That said, William Braniff, director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University, told the Times that one or two posts might be easy to overlook. But “when you add it all together,” Braniff said, “it’s much harder to dismiss.”

The post Team Trump pushes notorious phrase linked to white supremacists (again) appeared first on MS NOW.

When Ben Carson led the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he faced a variety of controversies, but one of the most embarrassing involved furniture he bought for his office at taxpayer expense. In one especially memorable congressional hearing, the then-secretary offered a rambling, and at times contradictory, explanation for the spending, initially saying the furniture was necessary in part for “security” reasons, before ultimately blaming his wife.

Around the same time, then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt also spent more than $43,000 to install a soundproof phone booth in his office for reasons that never made any sense.

Nothing of consequence came of the incidents, even if the controversies might have served as cautionary tales for future Cabinet members: It’s best to exercise caution when it comes to public funds and office decor.

It’s a lesson Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who actually served alongside Carson in the first Trump administration, failed to learn. The New York Times reported:

Linda McMahon, the education secretary, plans to spend $43,000 on new furniture for her government office, a work space makeover that comes as she lobbies Congress to shut down her department.

Ms. McMahon’s team has informed Congress that her current furniture is worn out and “cannot be configurationally or aesthetically integrated into the agency’s new office space,” according to Education Department records reviewed by The New York Times that have not been publicly disclosed.

I know effectively nothing about interior design, but I suppose “cannot be … aesthetically integrated” is another way of saying “looks funny.”

The amount of money is notable in its own right, but that McMahon wants to spend money on furnishing an office she doesn’t think should exist adds an element to the story that makes it unavoidably worse.

Two Democratic senators — Patty Murray of Washington, the vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies — wrote to the secretary this week, pressing her to abandon her spending plans.

“It has come to our attention that as you cut off funding for students, push out staff, and do all you can to illegally dismantle the very department you lead, you plan to spend $43,278.64 on new furniture for your own office,” the senators wrote. “You vowed to put yourself out of a job; now you expect American taxpayers to pick up the tab to refurnish your own office.”

“Secretary McMahon, you have asked students, families, and teachers across the country to endure extraordinarily painful cuts in the name of ‘fiscal responsibility,’ and you have pushed out nearly half of the staff at the Department,” they added. “This year, you have asked Congress to slash funding for important K-12 programs and to cut funding for higher education programs by nearly $5 billion. But it is clear that you do not think that you should have to abide by the same rules you want to apply to others.”

Murray and Baldwin concluded, “The American people are sick of the corruption, sick of the waste, and sick of the hypocrisy coming out of all corners of this administration.”

The Education Department’s press secretary told the Times the agency was “saving taxpayers millions of dollars,” in large part by moving to smaller offices as part of the broader effort to dismantle the department altogether. It’s a line McMahon is likely to repeat the next time she testifies on Capitol Hill.

The post ‘Sick of the waste’: Democrats seize on Linda McMahon’s office furniture flap appeared first on MS NOW.

For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.

After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.

This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.

Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump published four separate rants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.

On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.

Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”

For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.

There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.

That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.

The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.

Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.

Similar tactics have been common in Alaska for a while, including in 2010, when some of Murkowski’s critics encouraged people with similar names to register as write-in candidates.

Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.

The post Eyeing Alaska, Trump and Republicans pick a fight over campaign mischief they can’t win appeared first on MS NOW.

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

* In Kansas’ U.S. Senate race, the Rev. Adam Hamilton, the Democratic nominee, joked Wednesday that that he considers it “a great compliment” that national Republican leaders keep campaigning in his home state.

“It tells me that they are terrified that they’re going to lose this race — and they should be,” he said.

Soon after, the latest CNN poll in Kansas showed Hamilton leading incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, 49% to 45%.

* In Texas’ U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democratic state Rep. James Talarico leading Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton, 49% to 43%, although most other recent polling has pointed to a closer race.

* In Maine’s U.S. Senate race, the same CNN poll also found Democrat Troy Jackson ahead of incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, 49% to 45%.

* In Michigan’s U.S. Senate race, the latest CNN poll also found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed leading former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 49% to 42%, which is also a wider margin than we’ve seen in other recent high-quality polls.

* MS NOW’s polling averages for the races above, compiled by data partner FiftyPlusOne, are broken out here.

* In Mississippi’s U.S. Senate race, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has made another final-week investment, hoping to boost local prosecutor Scott Colom in his surprisingly competitive race against incumbent Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith.

* In Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, the latest Marquette Law School Poll found Democrat David Crowley leading Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, 51% to 44%.

* Though Louisiana has been generally considered one of the least competitive states in this year’s election cycle, Donald Trump announced that he will lead “a major TeleRally” on Monday night in support of Republican Rep. Julia Letlow’s Senate candidacy. With so many other competitive races on the ballot, it’s not clear why the president would spend the night before Election Day focused on helping Letlow in a race she’s all but certain to win anyway.

* In a key congressional race in Pennsylvania, No Going Back, a group affiliated with Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC, recently tried to boost Republican Rep. Scott Perry with an attack ad targeting Democrat Janelle Stelson. The ad included unsubstantiated allegations that were so problematic that a Harrisburg-area television station pulled the commercial from the air. This is the first and only instance from this election cycle that a campaign ad has been pulled by a station.

* And in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, Axios reported that Republican officials are increasingly convinced that Vivek Ramaswamy’s notorious attack ad is poised to cost him the election. At a Wednesday night rally in the Buckeye State, Trump nevertheless defended the ad and said it had merit.

The post Thursday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.29.26: Poll shows Hamilton leading in Kansas appeared first on MS NOW.

The closer we get to Election Day, the more hysterical Republican rhetoric has become when targeting Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee in Michigan. Donald Trump, predictably, has helped lead the slanderous charge, condemning the candidate as a “jihadist” who “should not be allowed to serve in our Senate.”

As is too often the case, the rest of the party has followed the president’s lead and headed for the gutter. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said El-Sayed “sleeps in a bin Laden jersey.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. campaigned in Michigan this week and thought it would be good idea to trash the scientific and literary accomplishments of a half-billion Arab Muslims. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas this week explicitly said that “there is a very real risk that Americans will die” if El-Sayed is elected and serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But it was something Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio said during a Wednesday night rally that stood out as unusual.

Moreno: "Rogers is in a race w/ somebody that is an affront to me as an American. El-Sayed can be nowhere near DC. Do you think he understands that concept that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near DC & Rogers is going to kick his ass."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-28T22:56:58.048Z

Making the case to Buckeye State voters who can’t cast ballots in Michigan’s Senate race, the GOP senator suggested that El-Sayed should be disqualified from serving in the chamber because he does not accept divinity of Jesus Christ.

“This character, Abdul El-Sayed, can be nowhere near Washington, D.C.,” Moreno said. “Do you think he understands that concept, that our rights come from God Almighty? That Jesus came here for our salvation? He should be nowhere near Washington, D.C., and [Republican candidate] Mike Rogers is going to kick his ass on Tuesday.”

So, a few things.

First, whether Moreno understood this or not, he was speaking at a rally that was intended to generate support for the GOP ticket in Ohio — a ticket led in part by Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republicans’ gubernatorial candidate, who is Hindu.

Second, when Moreno was sworn in as a senator, he swore to support and defend the Constitution, which includes Article VI, clause 3 — a provision that says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

And third, as Moreno really ought to know, roughly 1 in 3 Americans are not Christians, and the idea that they should be disqualified from congressional service because of their beliefs is plainly insane. Indeed, let’s not forget that there are Jewish Republicans in Congress and the White House Cabinet who would disagree with the senator’s belief that that “Jesus came here for our salvation.”

If Republicans want to try to influence the outcome of Michigan’s race, fine. That’s a normal part of the political discourse. But I’d be interested in knowing how many other Republicans agree with Moreno’s suggestion that religious minorities should be excluded from serving in the Senate.

The post GOP’s Moreno targets El-Sayed with a religious test that even many Republicans can’t pass appeared first on MS NOW.

A couple of months ago, Donald Trump announced plans to create a new national military academy, which he called the U.S. Space Academy. “You think of West Point, and you think of Annapolis, and you think of the Air Force Academy, and you think of the Coast Guard Academies,” the president said. “Great, they’re all great, but we’re going to have now the Space Force.”

It’s not altogether clear exactly what Space Academy graduates would do, but if the Republican’s plans are implemented, this will be the first new federal military academy opened in the United States since 1954.

The White House also hasn’t said where exactly this service academy would be. As it turns out, the president has some thoughts on the matter, which he shared at his latest campaign rally. NBC News reported:

Trump pledged to establish the new U.S. Space Force academy in Ohio, but only if Sen. Jon Husted wins re-election next week.

“And I wanted you to know that if Jon Husted wins, I am going to consider putting the Space Academy right here, if you win,” Trump said.

He added that “every state” wants the Space Force academy (itself a dubious claim), but that Ohio will be the one to get it — if Ohioans vote the way he wants them to in a Senate race.

If former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown prevails, Trump can still deliver the service academy to the Buckeye State, but by his own admission, he won’t. For the president, this is a transaction: He’s prepared to deliver a treat to Ohio, but it’s conditional on his satisfaction with a specific election, which has literally nothing to do with the Space Force or its academy.

This has become a staple of his midterm messaging:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: The president told an Ohio audience he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they didn’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elected a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Oct. 20: The president told a North Carolina audience he would settle claims related to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, but only if Republican candidates won. “If we don’t win, there’s no money,” Trump declared. “If we do win, you’re getting it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (Last week in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

In case this isn’t obvious, nothing about a Democratic-led Congress would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to these states or constituencies. The president made the commitments conditional, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s latest transactional pitch: Space Force academy is conditional on election outcome appeared first on MS NOW.

As the ninth month of the war with Iran gets underway, there’s new reason to believe the simmering conflict is poised to turn hot again. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said.

“The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations.”

It stands to reason that U.S. military planners would have a lot on their plate right now, which made it all the more notable that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to have fired the Pentagon official chiefly responsible for planning. The Atlantic reported:

Earlier this week, the Pentagon’s chief planner, Army Lieutenant General Brett Sylvia, was ousted from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. No explanation was given. This comes at an inopportune moment, given that President Trump may be planning to relaunch the war on Iran. Sylvia, the former commander of the 101st Airborne Division, becomes the latest in a long line of senior officers who have been shown the door since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon almost two years ago.

No replacement for Sylvia was named, and it is unclear who will take over his responsibilities.

The Washington Post published a related piece, noting that none of the relevant players commented on the development, but adding that Sylvia’s “online biography appears to have been removed from the Joint Staff website.”

The same report went on to note, “Sylvia’s abrupt removal has infuriated colleagues, who saw him as a battle-tested and thoughtful leader.”

But while the public waits for additional details about why the hapless defense secretary did this — Sylvia had been targeted by Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who often advises President Donald Trump — the larger context is tough to ignore: Two months ago, The New York Times reported that Hegseth’s personnel moves have been so dramatic that he has left the U.S. Army “essentially rudderless” during an ongoing war in the Middle East.

And yet it’s hard to imagine that more dramatic personnel moves are going to put a rudder back on the U.S. military.

I’ve spent months documenting the scope and scale of the former Fox News host’s relentless purge, which has affected every branch of the armed forces and which has grown so serious that it’s fueling congressional plans to impeach Hegseth.

But with the president in his corner, the secretary doesn’t appear to care — about the pushback, the fallout, the outrage or the consequences.

Political scientist Caitlin Talmadge, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who specializes in foreign policy and military operations, noted via social media earlier this year, “Firing senior officers for cause is one thing. Firing them repeatedly on this scale and with no explanation is unprecedented in our nation’s history.”

The practical effects matter. Over the last year, a great many critics have expressed concerns that Hegseth is destabilizing the U.S. military. In fact, The New York Times reported last fall that the secretary had fired or sidelined so many officials “with little explanation” that he’d created “an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust” within the department.

Politico published a similar report the month before, noting that the secretary’s firings have “injected a fresh wave of fear into the Pentagon over the cost of speaking up and who might be next.”

Early last year, five former defense secretaries, including retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary, condemned the pattern of firings as “reckless.” In a joint letter to Congress, they asked the House and Senate to hold “immediate hearings to assess the national security implications” of the dismissals.

Hegseth and the administration appear to have ignored those concerns; the purge is still going on; and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill have scheduled no such hearings — though that seems likely to change if there’s a Democratic majority next year.

Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who served as a Marine officer in Iraq and now serves on the House Armed Services Committee, spoke to Politico about Hegseth’s purges, which the congressman described as politically motivated.

“That’s a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military,” Moulton said. “That’s the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea.”

The Massachusetts Democrat made those comments a year ago. The problem is far worse now.

For his part, Hegseth testified on Capitol Hill in April and defended the pattern during congressional testimony, telling lawmakers who asked about his personnel purge, “Under Barack Obama, 197 general officers were removed. So this is not something specific to this administration.”

We learned soon after that the statistic the secretary cited was entirely made up and had no basis in fact. Whether or not Hegseth is prepared to acknowledge the facts, he’s removed more senior military leaders than any defense secretary in recent American history.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Hegseth purges yet another top general, intensifying controversy appeared first on MS NOW.

As the final week before the midterm elections got underway, the political world’s focus turned to, of all things, the Cheesecake Factory.

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

Spending a little time on the incumbent’s obsession with renovations and interior design, Obama noted Trump turning the Oval Office into a showcase for gold curios. “He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” the former president said to hearty laughter.

Predictably, Trump and his allies spent the ensuing days (a) whining incessantly about Obama having hurt his successor’s feelings; (b) defending the Cheesecake Factory, which obviously wasn’t the target of the joke; and (c) celebrating the Republican’s redecorating efforts, effectively proving Obama’s point about Trump fixating on renovations instead of his duties.

On Wednesday night, Obama returned to the stump, this time in Georgia, where he took some time to reflect on the truly bizarre reaction to his line from days earlier.

"The president wasn't even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison! But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory" — here's Obama's full riff about the "phony outrage" over his Trump/Cheesecake Factory comments and how it illustrates that "these are not serious people"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-29T00:42:53.539Z

After beginning his riff talking about how much time he and his family spent at the Cheesecake Factory, especially as his daughters were growing up, Obama noted, “Of course, the real problem is, prices have gotten so high a lot of folks can barely afford to go out to eat.”

“So you would think that this administration would be spending time worrying about that,” he continued. “But that was the interesting thing about how the administration responded to the speech I gave the other day. They did not dispute what I said about them being directly responsible for rising prices; they did not argue with that. They did not deny tariffs were contributing to higher costs for families; they didn’t say anything about that. I accused this administration, based on the facts, that they were engaging in unprecedented levels of corruption; they didn’t say anything about that.

“The president wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison. That part didn’t bother him. But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory comment. He took great umbrage. He said I didn’t understand the work of the ‘artisans’ in the White House.

“It’s all crazy, but this was the really crazy part: They mobilized a whole-of-government response to that joke — not to inflation, but to that joke.”

After highlighting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s weird event at a Cheesecake Factory earlier this week, the former president concluded, “To everybody out there, including the press, I want you to understand this: This is what I mean when I say these are not serious people. They don’t have solutions to actual problems, so they’d rather have the media and you talking about the Cheesecake Factory. That’s the game they’ve been playing for the last two years. Just keep throwing distractions out there. Attacks, fabrications, phony outrage, and hope that you won’t notice that your bills are higher and your life is tougher.”

As luck would have it, right around the same time that Obama was speaking in Atlanta, the incumbent president was delivering remarks of his own in Ohio, where he spent even more time talking about how impressed he was with himself for devoting so much attention to White House renovations.

“President Obama, who doesn’t understand cleanliness, who doesn’t understand broken, cracked stone and sidewalk, who doesn’t understand that having asphalt going to your main entrance is not the right thing,” the Republican said. “We’d like to have granites and marbles. We’d like to have it look nice. You don’t use asphalt.”

He then proceeded to share some additional thoughts on asphalt, which probably isn’t the message his political operation had in mind for the election season’s closing days, though it went a long way toward proving Obama’s point.

The post Obama skewers Trump again, says he ‘wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison’ appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* In light of the latest economic data, this decision was hardly the obvious one: “The Federal Reserve kept its key rate unchanged Wednesday at about 3.9% despite stubbornly high inflation, as Chairman Kevin Warsh suggested its policies are already showing signs of having an impact.”

* A remarkable turn of events in Brazil: “Defeated Brazilian presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro and his family landed in Miami on Wednesday after fleeing Brazil. The stunning move came after 48 hours in which Bolsonaro refused to concede to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and then threatened to attempt to annul the election result.”

* In related news: “A Brazilian Supreme Court justice on Tuesday ordered a police investigation into alleged ties between a donor network co-founded by Vice President JD Vance and the presidential campaign of Flávio Bolsonaro in the run-up to Sunday’s election.”

* A devastating disaster: “One high-speed Spanish train slammed into another that had stopped on the tracks Wednesday, killing at least 68 people and shredding carriages in the country’s second deadly rail collision this year. The regional government for Castilla La Mancha confirmed the death toll and said another 58 people needed medical treatment in hospital.”

* A case of ongoing interest: “Three news organizations that sued the White House after President Donald Trump banned them from the grounds have amended their lawsuit. They are now asking a federal judge to permanently restore their access, not just to the White House but to other areas including the Oval Office and Air Force One. The amended complaint filed by the news outlets — MS NOW, CNN and Politico — comes two weeks after U.S. Judge Timothy Kelly indefinitely reversed Trump’s ban and restored their access to the White House.”

* The need for secrecy in this case is hardly obvious: “The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington said on Tuesday that it would not unseal a search warrant executed by federal agents at the home of Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota this month. The office also asked a federal judge to deny requests for the warrant’s release.”

* The White House sure has lost a lot of cases like this one: “A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Donald Trump-backed lawyer has been ‘unlawfully serving’ as the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. The decision regarding Bill Essayli’s service does not immediately take effect, and Essayli said the Supreme Court ‘will ultimately decide’ the legality of his tenure.”

* A little something to keep democracy advocates up at night: “As Election Day nears, recent events have prompted some FBI agents to express concern, according to seven people with knowledge of internal discussions among the ranks, that they may be ordered to seize voting machines or take other actions that disrupt election results.”

* The passing of a legend: “Dolores Huerta, an icon of the labor movement in California who co-founded the United Farm Workers, died Wednesday at the age of 96, her family announced.”

See you tomorrow.

The post Wednesday’s Mini-Report, 10.28.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

Ahead of the 2020 elections, Donald Trump told anyone who would listen that a Joe Biden victory would lead to “a depression the likes of which you’ve never seen.” The then-president’s claim was obviously foolish and quickly discredited by reality.

The Republican is nevertheless recycling the line, declaring at a campaign rally in Mississippi this week, “If the Democrats win, you will have a 1929-style economic depression. What they want to do is so bad for our country, you’re going to end up with a massive recession or depression.”

The incumbent president never got around to saying how this economic calamity would happen, which parts of the Democratic agenda are so dangerous or why he was so spectacularly wrong when he made the same prediction six years earlier.

But what struck me as especially notable was that even Trump doesn’t seem to believe his own fearmongering.

Just hours before his event in Mississippi, the president briefly spoke to reporters, one of whom asked how he’d “work with Democrats if they have control of the House or the Senate.” He replied:

We’ll figure a way. Look, I have strong veto. I hope that that won’t be the case, but if it is, that’s happened before with many presidents. And you have strong veto and you end up working out deals.

Oh.

So on the one hand, Trump wants Americans to believe that a Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would transform the nation into a hellscape in which transgender Muslim immigrants come to your home to turn your children into communists.

But on the other hand, Trump also wants Americans to believe that if there is a Democratic majority, he’ll veto bad ideas while working on possible bipartisan agreements — which is unlikely to sound all that scary to many voters.

The president made similar comments in early September, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, “I’ll block all their bad stuff for two years. It won’t be the same, but I’ll be a blocker, what can I tell you?”

He then added that he’ll “probably be able to make deals” with the possible Democratic majority.

The Republican Party’s line is that the stakes in this election cycle are effectively existential — but Trump’s line is that it just won’t be that big a deal if Democrats prevail. That’s quite a message for the incumbent president to take to the electorate in the cycle’s closing days, but here we are.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump downplays concerns about a possible Democratic majority, stepping on his message appeared first on MS NOW.

Headed into Election Day, it’s not exactly a secret that House Republicans are likely to lose their majority. Democrats only need a net gain of a handful of seats, and all of the available evidence suggests that won’t be a problem.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, keeps taking issue with the evidence.

“Republicans are no longer responding to polls,” the GOP leader told Fox News over the weekend. He added, “I’m telling you these polls are off — all of them.”

On Monday night, the Louisiana congressman returned to the network and pushed effectively the same line. “I’m telling you the polling is inaccurate,” the House speaker said.

Maybe so. Maybe Johnson’s right — we can probably all think of instances when polls have been off to one degree or another — and it could be the political world is in for an enormous surprise next week.

But if that were to happen, Republicans themselves would be among those who are shocked.

As a matter of campaign strategy and tactics, I can appreciate why Johnson is pushing this line with so much enthusiasm. He is, after all, Congress’ top GOP lawmaker. If he were openly accepting the available data on public attitudes, the House speaker would effectively have to admit the odds of him holding onto his gavel are poor, which wouldn’t exactly motivate his party’s rank-and-file voters to cast a ballot.

But regardless of Johnson’s motivations, even his own party doesn’t genuinely believe his talking point. We know this for certain because Republicans keep moving campaign money around to protect vulnerable GOP incumbents — not based on pleas and anecdotal evidence, but because of their own polling data.

The same is true for Donald Trump’s campaign schedule. The president hasn’t invested his time in states such as Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kansas — states he won by enormous margins two years ago — because he finds local conditions pleasant this time of year. The White House political operation is deploying Trump in response to polling data, even as Johnson insists that Republicans “are no longer responding to polls.”

Of course they are. There’s nothing else for them to use when making difficult electoral decisions.

The post Speaker Johnson says the polls are wrong. His own party doesn’t appear to agree. appeared first on MS NOW.

Amid a flurry of Justice Department efforts to target people whom Donald Trump doesn’t like, two former FBI officials were charged late last week with lying to Congress — in a case of particular interest to the president.

Remember the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop? As part of a Republican investigation into the matter, Nikki Floris, the former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, and Bradley Benavides, another FBI official, briefed members of Congress about the contents of the computer. Last week, Trump’s DOJ charged them with allegedly making false statements about their level of involvement into the investigation.

Their attorneys condemned the charges as political “nonsense,” announced 10 days before closely watched elections, and it didn’t help matters that the president told reporters after their arrest, “I heard they were bad people.” He did not say from whom he’d heard this.

Nevertheless, the case appears to be off to a rough start. After prosecutors added an obstruction charge to the case, for example, a federal judge dismissed it.

But just as notable was what we learned from Bryan Witt, a veteran FBI agent, who testified Tuesday and shed light on what transpired behind the scenes. The New York Times reported:

In mid-July, President Trump gave a prime-time speech in which he raised concerns about a disputed F.B.I. report that China had tried to interfere in the 2020 election in an effort to defeat him.

At the heart of his address was a bitter complaint: that some of the bureau’s intelligence officials had purposefully sought to play down the report to undercut his claims about the race.

According to Witt’s testimony, one day after Trump targeted FBI officials in his remarks, FBI Director Kash Patel directed prosecutors immediately to investigate the officials for obstruction and conspiracy.

Witt conceded that FBI officials saw the inquiry as a “witch hunt,” and he personally saw the effort as a “huge distraction,” but the push ultimately led to charges against Floris and Benavides.

The Times report went on to note that Witt “asserted from the stand that he had never before worked on a case where instructions came directly from the F.B.I.’s director. He added that Mr. Patel and his deputies often checked on his progress, pressing him and his colleagues to move as aggressively as possible.”

Time will tell what becomes of the case, though it’s a safe bet that the defendants’ attorneys have taken a keen interest in what Witt had to say. But the broader takeaway from the agent’s testimony is unavoidable: Trump snaps his fingers, and Patel follows the president’s orders.

White House control over the Justice Department has been well-documented, but its control over the FBI is just as overwhelming. Patel, best known as a podcast personality before Senate Republicans elevated him to his powerful role, may lead the bureau, but there is fresh reason to believe he’s effectively a DINO — Director in Name Only.

The post In court testimony, FBI agent sheds new light on the White House’s control over the bureau appeared first on MS NOW.

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

* In South Carolina’s U.S. Senate race, there has been very little independent polling, though that has finally changed: The latest New York Times/Siena poll found Dr. Annie Andrews, the Democratic nominee, tied with Republican Sen. Darline Graham, with both garnering 48% support.

The poll comes on the heels of Andrews picking up an endorsement from former Gov. David Beasley, a Republican, and it coincides with Republican Rep. Ralph Norman, who lost to Graham in a competitive special election primary, declaring that South Carolina voters “deserve better” than Graham.

* In Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, there also has been a dearth of high-quality recent polling, which made it all the more notable to see the latest New York Times/Siena poll showing Democratic Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan leading conservative media personality Michele Tafoya, the Republican nominee, 54% to 40%.

* In Florida’s statewide races, the latest New York Times/Siena poll showed a competitive gubernatorial race, with Republican Rep. Byron Donalds leading former Rep. David Jolly, the Democratic nominee, 48% to 44%.

The same polling found incumbent Republican Sen. Ashley Moody with a six point advantage over state Rep. Angie Nixon, 50% to 44%.

* In Alaska’s gubernatorial race, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski officially endorsed Democrat Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins’ candidacy, cementing his front-runner status in the race to succeed Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is term limited.

As for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race, The New York Times reported that the political operation of the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, was more involved in finding someone named Dan Sullivan to run against Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, than previously known.

* In Texas’ competitive gubernatorial race, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is benefiting from another $5 million investment from GOP megadonor Elon Musk in the contest’s final week.

* In Ohio’s statewide races, the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll found the Democratic nominee, former Sen. Sherrod Brown, ahead of the Republican incumbent, Sen. Jon Husted, 47% to 44%.

The same poll showed Democrat Amy Acton leading Republican Vivek Ramaswamy by a slightly larger margin in Ohio’s gubernatorial race, 48% to 44%.

* And in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District, which Republicans expect to flip after approving a gerrymandering scheme, there’s a new problem for the GOP nominee: State Sen. Brent Taylor reportedly sent an unsolicited nude picture, to someone who was not his wife, as recently as 2021.

When the Nashville Scene, an alternative weekly newspaper, asked the Republican about what transpired, Taylor said, “As I near 60 years old, the expiration date has come and gone on any of my youthful indiscretions.” The incident in question happened when he was 53 — which is generally not seen as “youthful.”

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.28.26: Poll shows tied race in South Carolina appeared first on MS NOW.

Among the many questions surrounding the war with Iran is just how much this disastrous and destabilizing conflict is costing American taxpayers. The answer continues to be a moving target.

Last month, for example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded the war had cost $38 billion, but it was clear almost immediately that figure was incomplete: It didn’t include the costs associated with repairing U.S. military bases hit by Iranian strikes, replacing munitions stockpiles, the economic costs imposed on the American public or the interest on the national debt (among other things).

The CBO might have come up with a better number, but the office was hampered by the Defense Department’s refusal to provide any information.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon told lawmakers in mid-September that the conflict had cost $43.6 billion. This week, the DOD revised that total. The New York Times reported:

The cost of the war in Iran rose to $47.1 billion through Oct. 16, with bombs, missiles and other munitions accounting for more than 60 percent of the expenses, the Pentagon told Congress last week.

Even with President Trump holding back on restarting major combat operations, at least for now, the Pentagon still incurred about $3.5 billion in additional costs in the roughly six weeks since the Pentagon shared estimates with lawmakers last month.

The Times added that the department’s latest price tag is “almost certainly on the low side” and failed to include a variety of related costs.

Noting that the Republican White House launched the war exactly eight months ago, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement, “For eight months, American families have been buried by the heavy cost of Trump’s disastrous war in Iran. Twenty-one servicemembers have died and hundreds more have been wounded. Prices are skyrocketing, and families are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to look the other way.”

The New York Democrat added, “Trump and his ego led us into this war with no plan, no authority, and no exit strategy. Senate Democrats will continue to do everything in our power to end this disaster of a war and stop the costs, chaos, and corruption seeping from the White House.”

Meanwhile, as the ninth month of war gets underway, there’s new reason to believe the conflict is poised to turn hot again. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The U.S. has told several Gulf Arab countries to be prepared for a short, intense military campaign after the U.S. midterm elections, people briefed on the conversations said.

“The communications through diplomatic and military channels are among a growing number of indications that the U.S. and Israel are readying to launch a new round of heavy combat operations against Iran, risking a major escalation in hopes of degrading Tehran’s strength and pushing it toward negotiations.”

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Eight months into the conflict, the U.S. war with Iran gets a revised price tag appeared first on MS NOW.

It’s apparently called the “Cabinet Travel Competition.” According to a report published by The Atlantic last month, the White House came up with the contest, which is exactly what it sounds like: The White House “encourages” Cabinet secretaries to “traverse the country to promote President [Donald] Trump’s agenda” and “tracks their visits to politically competitive congressional districts or states ahead of the midterm elections.”

Cabinet members, the article added, are awarded “points” based on their performance.

Although there are ethics laws such as the Hatch Act that appear to limit secretaries from engaging in such partisan election-season politicking, there’s ample evidence that a) the administration has pushed the gambit anyway; and b) several secretaries have taken the “Cabinet Travel Competition” quite seriously.

Indeed, it’s been quite jarring to see so many powerful officials — from Attorney General Todd Blanche to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to Energy Secretary Chris Wright — allow themselves to serve as pieces on an electoral chessboard, to be moved around for the benefit of the Republican Party.

In each instance, these secretaries’ predecessors from both parties went out of their way to avoid electioneering, recognizing that it was not their place to use their taxpayer-financed positions to travel from state to state, participating in partisan campaign events.

And yet, in 2026, a new normal is taking shape.

For his part, Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared to know better. The Florida Republican, who has been tapped to serve in a cartoonishly long list of positions on Trump’s team, has spent the year steering clear of the “Cabinet Travel Competition,” perhaps because he saw it as unseemly, or perhaps because he simply couldn’t squeeze time into his busy schedule to appear at campaign events.

Either way, Rubio earned some “points” on Tuesday afternoon, traveling with the president to some campaign events in Texas. He even delivered remarks at a rally in Corpus Christi, where he told Trump’s devotees, “It’s an honor to work for the greatest country in the world, for the greatest president in the history of the United States of America.”

Marco Rubio gets on stage and says he works for the "great president in the history of the United States"

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-27T20:48:58.021Z

As Tuesday got underway, Politico reported that Rubio was not expected to speak. Hours later, either he changed his mind or someone changed it for him. (A State Department official told The Hill that Rubio was traveling in his capacity as White House national security adviser, though that was hardly a compelling excuse, since he doesn’t have the luxury of simply pretending he’s not the current secretary of state.)

Almost exactly six years ago, then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo faced an investigation from the Office of Special Counsel after engaging in election-season partisan activities. Six years later, Rubio is apparently picking up where his Republican predecessor left off, seemingly confident that he won’t have to worry about the consequences.

The post Marco Rubio becomes the latest Cabinet official to brush off ethics limits, hit the campaign trail appeared first on MS NOW.