Democrats are in trouble in New Jersey, and former President Barack Obama is stepping in to try to reinforce Democrats ahead of a crucial election.
Obama has officially endorsed New Jersey’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, as she is caught in a tight race with Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who hopes to flip New Jersey's governor's mansion for the first time since 2018.
While Sherrill leads Ciattarelli by six points, there is genuine fear that Ciattarelli could flip New Jersey due to an overwhelming negative sentiment towards Democrats.
The race in New Jersey is one of two major gubernatorial battles that Democrats are pouring a lot of money and energy into, the other being in Virginia.
Obama has also issued an endorsement of former Democrat Representative Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, as Democrats are working to retake Virginia.
While Obama is a popular figure among Democrats, he doesn't enjoy the universal acclaim he once had all those years ago.
Bringing out Obama to make a political endorsement is a risky measure due to his increasingly divisive image with moderates and center-right conservatives. So this is an all-hands-on-deck moment for Democrats to try and ward off Ciattarelli.
In an ad released on Friday, Obama called on New Jersey voters to come out for Sherrill saying, "Mikie’s integrity, grit, and commitment to service are what we need right now in our leaders. Mikie Sherrill is the right choice for your next governor."
It isn't just Obama who's been called in to shore up Sherrill. Other Democrat Governors, like Maryland Governor Wes Moore and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, have also publicly thrown their political clout behind Sherrill.
Responding to Obama's endorsement, Sherrill stated, "This November, we have an opportunity to chart a different path forward — to reject the chaos in Washington and lower costs in New Jersey — and I’m so grateful to have President Obama’s support and endorsement in this race. President Obama led historic efforts to lower healthcare costs and, now, Jack Ciattarelli is all in on Trump’s plans to raise premiums and kick hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans off their healthcare."
Sherill is wisely focusing on economic issues which is keeping her in the lead and marks a sharp tack away from the typical Democrat playbook of focusing on social issues. Nonetheless, there are fears that Sherrill could lose this race.
Ciattarelli came just three points shy of beating Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in 2021 when President Joe Biden won the White House. Now with Democrats very much still in retreat, Ciattarelli believes he has what he needs to claim victory.
He explained, “I flipped eight seats in the state Legislature with the wind in our face and despite those challenges, it was the most successful night in 34 years for the Republican Party. In 2023, without me at the top of the ballot, we gave all those seats right back. But I’m telling you, this time around, we’ve got some wind at our back.”
Clearly, Democrats agree with Ciattarelli, and that's why they are pulling out all the stops to rally behind Sherrill to try and avoid the humiliation of losing the Garden State.
Hold onto your gavels, folksSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just dropped a comparison during a heated hearing that’s raising eyebrows across the political spectrum, as Breitbart reports.
In a recent Supreme Court session on the constitutionality of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a case known as Louisiana v. Callais took center stage, sparking debate over whether Louisiana’s congressional map, with two majority-Black districts, violates constitutional protections against racial gerrymandering.
The hearing tackled heavy questions about the 14th and 15th Amendments, specifically whether the map’s design amounts to unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering as claimed by the plaintiffs.
Enter Justice Jackson, who decided to frame the issue with an analogy that’s got conservatives scratching their heads -- she likened the challenges faced by Black American voters to those encountered by Americans with physical disabilities.
Drawing on the Americans with Disabilities Act, she argued that remedial actions in civil rights law often address disparities without proving discriminatory intent, much like making buildings accessible regardless of a builder’s motives.
“Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible. I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here,” Jackson stated during the hearing.
She pushed further, questioning why voting rights remedies couldn’t follow a similar logic -- addressing current disadvantages for minorities even if no explicit intent to discriminate exists.
“The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system,” Jackson argued, even using the term “disabled” to describe unequal processes, referencing a past Supreme Court case, Milliken v. Bradley.
While her point aims at fairness, equating racial challenges to physical disabilities feels like a stretch to many on the right, who see it as muddling distinct issues with loaded language.
Lawyer Edward Greim, representing the opposition, wasn’t buying the comparison, countering that remedies under laws like the ADA don’t rely on assumptions or stereotypes, unlike some race-based voting fixes.
“It’s whether the remedy that relates to race involves stereotyping voters and making assumptions about their politics and their views and thoughts based on their race and that’s the problem,” Greim asserted, pointing to a slippery slope in applying such logic to electoral maps.
His rebuttal hits a nerve for conservatives wary of policies that might pigeonhole individuals based on group identity rather than individual merit or behavior.
Justice Jackson pressed on, questioning whether racial disparities in voting access should simply be ignored if race-based remedies are off the table, a query that sounds noble but risks overcorrecting in ways that could divide more than unite.
Greim’s concern about stereotyping isn’t just legal jargon—it’s a reminder that good intentions can pave a path to policies that assume too much about people’s beliefs based on skin color, a notion that clashes with the colorblind ideal many conservatives hold dear.
While the debate in Louisiana v. Callais won’t settle overnight, it’s clear this case, and Jackson’s analogy, will fuel discussions about how far remedial action should go before it becomes another form of bias -- something worth watching as the court deliberates on balancing equality with fairness.
Two members of a submarine crew have been detained after President Donald Trump's latest Caribbean boat strike, making this the first time that anyone has survived the president's bombing campaign against suspected drug vessels.
The two survivors were rescued by helicopter and are being detained on an American ship, ABC News reported.
Speaking with reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said that a drug-carrying submarine had been taken out, and no "innocent" lives were lost. This is now the sixth boat strike since September.
Latin American drug lords commonly use custom-designed submarines, or "narco-subs," to transport large shipments of cocaine and other illicit drugs over sea.
"We attacked a submarine," Trump said, saying the vessel was designed to carry "massive amounts" of drugs. "Just so you understand. This was not an innocent group of people,” he said. “I don’t know too many people that have submarines. That was an attack on a drug-carrying, loaded-up submarine.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more details would be released later Friday and that the people on board were “terrorists.”
Trump has taken an aggressive military posture in the Americas in order to stop the flow of deadly drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border.
Democrats in Congress have attempted to limit Trump's war powers as critics accuse him of conducting illegal extrajudicial killings of potentially innocent people.
Meanwhile, the military commander who oversees operations in Latin America is stepping down. Admiral Alvin Holsey is reportedly retiring at the end of the year.
The Pentagon dismissed a New York Times report that said Holsey voiced concerns about the boat strikes. “This is a total lie. Never happened. There was no hesitation or concerns about this mission,” said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.
Trump's Caribbean campaign is part of a show of force against Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, whom Trump accuses of covertly funneling deadly drugs to the United States.
The presisdent's buildup in Latin America has brought thousands of troops to the region, along with guided missile destroyers, F-35 fighter jets, and a nuclear submarine.
This week, Trump confirmed that he is considering direct strikes on land as he authorizes the CIA to conduct operations inside Venezuela, fueling speculation of a plan to topple Maduro.
"We are certainly looking at land now because we’ve got the sea under control,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
“A lot of Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea. So you get to see that, but we’re going to stop them by land also," he added.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) suffered a fall at the Capitol on Thursday while he was being confronted by left-wing protesters.
The incident was captured on film by activists with the Sunrise Movement, who approached the 83-year-old Republican to question him about President Trump's immigration raids, the New York Post reported.
He was quickly helped to his feet and is reportedly doing fine.
In a video of the incident, McConnell was seen walking through a hallway as a woman approached to ask if he supports Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "kidnapping" people.
Sen. Mitch McConnell fell in the Russell basement, while being questioned my members of The Sunrise Movement, who took this video. pic.twitter.com/BeGNEE5SgP
— Erik Rosales (@ErikRosalesNews) October 16, 2025
Moments later, McConnell lost his balance and fell to the ground.
After getting back up with help from his aide and a Capitol Police officer, McConnell turned to the person filming, waved, and shuffled away.
McConnell, a defense hawk, went on to vote for a full-year spending bill for the military that failed 50-44. Republicans proposed the bill to bring pressure on Democrats to end the government shutdown, which is now in its third week.
“He’s all good,” McConnell’s spokesperson told The New York Post. “[He] went on to vote and [is] ready to vote again … to see if Dems decide to fund our nation’s defense priorities or not.”
McConnell announced his retirement in February following a series of falls and a few incidents of blank staring that raised health concerns.
In 2023, McConnell was hospitalized after a fall that left him with a fractured rib and a concussion. When he eventually returned to work, he had two separate incidents of freezing up at press conferences that prompted more questions.
Last December, McConnell sprained his wrist and cut his face after a fall at a Republican lunch. Months later, in February 2025, McConnel fell down a set of stairs at the Capitol.
McConnell still has more than a year left of work before he retires in January 2027.
The veteran lawmaker, who led his party in the Senate for almost two decades, plans to use his remaining time in Congress to advance his hawkish defense agenda, the Lexington Herald Leader reported.
“I can guarantee Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew that we were reluctant to give the Ukrainians what they need to shoot Russia,” McConnell said at a recent event.
Former Trump White House adviser John Bolton surrendered at a federal courthouse on Friday after FBI investigators caught him leaking classified information.
Bolton allegedly leaked seven documents while working for Trump at the White House and leaked another shortly after the president fired him in September 2019, ABC News reported.
The longtime Trump critic pleaded not guilty to 18 felony counts and denounced the indictment as a sham, echoing Democrats who have accused Trump of "weaponizing" the law to target his political foes.
Bolton had a brief and rocky tenure as Trump's national security adviser during the president's first White House term.
A Republican fixture in Washington, D.C. foreign policy circles for decades, Bolton's aggressive personality and hawkish views clashed with those of the commander in chief, who would denounce Bolton as a reckless "warmonger" after firing him. After departing the White House, Bolton published a tell-all book that led to a reprimand from a judge for compromising national security.
In August, Bolton fell under scrutiny again after federal investigators raided his Maryland home and Washington, D.C. office. Many Democrats reflexively denounced the raid as an intimidation tactic, but few Democrats rushed to Bolton's defense after the charges were unveiled.
The indictment accuses Bolton of using a personal e-mail account to send over 1,000 pages of top secret and other classified information in "diary-like entries" to members of his family.
Prosecutors also say that Bolton unlawfully retained physical documents inside his home and also kept copies on his personal devices. Some of the information Bolton transmitted, which included sensitive details on "future attacks, foreign adversaries, and foreign-policy relations," was allegedly exposed by Iranian hackers.
When Bolton reported the hack of his e-mail to the FBI in 2021, he failed to mention that he had used the account to send classified information, prosecutors say.
Bolton appeared to be aware that his clandestine actions could get him in trouble, telling one relative whom he sent a file, "None of which we talk about!!!", to which the person responded, "Shhhhh," the AP reported.
Bolton faces eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information.
According to Bolton's lawyer Abbe Lowell, Bolton shared "unclassified" information with his immediate family only, and the FBI knew all about it in 2021. "Like many public officials throughout history," Lowell said, "Bolton kept diaries -- that is not a crime."
The prosecution of Bolton comes within weeks of indictments being brought against New York attorney general Letitia James and former FBI director James Comey, both Trump antagonists who have been accused of weaponizing the power of government in their own ways.
Unlike Comey and James, Bolton may have difficulty winning sympathy from the liberal media.
Even the left-leaning Associated Press acknowledged that the case against Bolton "was already well underway by the time Trump took office" and that it appears to be more "conventional" than the cases against James and Comey.
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hinted that she may challenge Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for his seat in their state's Democratic primary, the New York Post reported. Ocasio-Cortez indicated this during a CNN town hall discussion on Wednesday with independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
The moderator, Kaitlin Collins, asked the leftist politicians whether they thought Schumer had to go because of his role in the continued government shutdown. While both seemed to brush off the idea as absurd, what Ocasio-Cortez said next seemed to suggest that she believes it's time to challenge the 74-year-old senator.
Ocasio-Cortez said she is "sick of talking about these horse races" and "sick of leaders who only want to spend their time talking about that instead of talking about real issues that affect our lives." She then made a gaffe that is sure to become a classic. "Instead of talking about healthcare; Instead of talking about wages; Instead of talking about having air that is drinkable – I mean, air that is breathable and water that is drinkable."
Both were deflecting and attempting to take the heat off Schumer and the Democrats as the government shutdown drags on because of their unwillingness to budge. Sanders turned to his usual socialist arguments about inequality and economic issues, without really discussing Schumer and his positions.
"That's exactly what we're talking--we have a country that is falling apart. We had a housing crisis, a health care crisis, an education crisis, massive income and wealth inequality, corrupt campaign finances, and the media says, ‘Are you going to run? What are you going to run for?’ Nobody cares!" Sanders claimed.
Collins pushed back on Sanders that it is not just the media talking about challenging Schumer, noting that President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have been speculating whether Ocasio-Cortez would be the one to do unseat Schumer. Sanders said that the president and vice president are only doing this to "deflect attention away from the real issues" before launching into more of his default rhetoric.
"We're living in the richest country in the history of the world, right? All right, you tell me why we're the only nation not to guarantee health care to all people," Sanders bemoaned.
"The only nation not to guarantee paid family and medical leave, why we have a $7.25 an hour minimum wage, why we have 800,000 people sleeping out on the street," he added. "Let’s talk about that issue — not her political future. She’ll decide that," Sanders said.
This idea is not out of nowhere, as Fox News reported that others have hinted that Ocasio-Cortez may already be more powerful in the party and is striving for even more sway. During an appearance on MSNBC last month, Ocasio-Cortez made it seem like she was the one calling the shots.
"My office is open, and you are free to walk in and negotiate with me directly," she said to Republicans while speaking about the shutdown. When a reporter asked former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether there was any merit in Republicans's feelings that Ocasio-Cortez had bargaining power, Pelosi snapped back at the reporter who dared to breach the topic.
"Why are you saying such a ridiculous thing? She’s wonderful, she’s a real team player, and the rest of that," Pelosi said.
"You started by saying Republicans say that she’s directing this. She is not, Hakeem Jeffries is," Pelosi said, referring to the House Minority Leader.
The Democratic Party is having a hard time pulling out of this tailspin, and perhaps it is time for new leaders to step up. Still, even if Ocasio-Cortez is downplaying it and others are sidestepping it, it's time for new leadership before they get to a point where they'll never politically recover.
President Donald Trump's requirement that truck drivers be proficient in English has led to 6,000 truck drivers being sidelined since it took effect in May.
Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy issued the guidance that roadside inspections would be conducted only in English, and drivers who didn't seem proficient in English would face a two-step evaluation.
If drivers failed the evaluation, they were immediately out of service, rather than just getting a citation and being expected to improve.
Trucking companies and civil rights groups have pushed back on the regulation, saying that research has not shown English proficiency to lower crash risk.
Most recently, the Transportation Department has said it will withhold $40 million in federal highway and safety grants from California, accusing the state of not enforcing the new rules.
The state stands to lose another $160 million if it can't show compliance in the future.
California argued back that its accident rates are below the national average as well as claiming that it is enforcing safety rules.
Other states that have been warned include New Mexico and Washington.
The rule really isn't new, it's just a stronger enforcement of federal regulation 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2), a statute that has long required commercial drivers to "speak and read the English language sufficiently" that they can hold a conversation with the public, understand highway signage, respond to official inquiries, and complete reports.
Trucking companies have responded by implementing English trainings and assessments to help drivers come into compliance with the rule. They are also implementing contingency plans for if drivers fail inspections and are taken out of service.
Senate Republicans are looking to codify the rule into legislation so that it can't be challenged in the courts--or at least it would be more difficult to do so.
The downside of 6,000 fewer truck drivers could be supply chain problems, because that's 6,000 fewer trucks that could be delivering goods to stores and warehouses.
It does make sense to require English proficiency because road signs are in English and different situations could require a knowledge of English.
Sometimes a new rule is difficult at first, but is a benefit in the long run. It seems like this is one of those rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court could limit the 1965 Voting Rights Act and alter the way congressional redistricting maps are created, according to The Washington Times. The case stems from a lower court's decision to mandate that Louisiana add a second majority-Black district, based on its overall population, rather than the geographic distribution of that population.
It's always been the case that the winning political party gets to draw the districting maps, including when it is advantageous to the party in power. However, Democrats have used the 60-year-old legislation as a way to push their own version of how the maps should be drawn, and it has become a way to discriminate.
This is what happened in Louisiana, as the arbitrary factor of skin color became the method by which to redraw the maps, thanks to a lower court's decision. That scheme may now be in jeopardy with the case before the conservative-leaning high court.
Some, including Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aruinaga, argue that the Voting Rights Act is reductive when it comes to race and that at least part of it is unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not tolerate this system of government-mandated racial balancing," Aguinaga argued before the Supreme Court.
Janai Nelson, an attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that redrawing the maps to eliminate the new Black districts would be "a staggering" change to the way voting is made fair. "This is about race," Nelson said, arguing in favor of keeping the status quo.
"Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is laser-focused on eliminating racial discrimination from our electoral process regardless of party," she added. However, the justices have been hinting that Section 2 of the legislation may be on the chopping block, especially those appointed by President Donald Trump.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch pushed back on Nelson's assertion, noting that it sounds as if it is "sometimes acceptable for a federal district court to order a map that intentionally discriminates on the basis of race," he said. Similarly, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that Section 2 may be obsolete, or at least on its way to becoming so.
"This court’s cases, in a variety of contexts, have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time … but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint," Kavanaugh said. Democrats see it differently, of course, and Biden-appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson insisted that racial discrimination is the only way to fix racial discrimination.
"They’re so tied up with race because that’s the initial problem. That’s the beginning," Jackson said.
As per the usual arrangement, the left is doing mental gymnastics to explain how racial discrimination is actually a good thing because it suits their purposes this time around. As the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh pointed out in a post to X, formerly Twitter, Democrats are attached to the law because it has been a boon for them.
"Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again," Walsh wrote on Thursday.
"This is a huge, huge case," he added. The post included a photo of the southern states and how Democratic strongholds would be "wiped out" if the law was repealed.
Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act to rig the system for decades. If the Supreme Court finally fixes this problem, and it looks like they will, Democrats may never win a majority in the House ever again. This is a huge, huge case. https://t.co/oSG3isAxLA
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 16, 2025
There is no excuse for racial discrimination, even when it is ostensibly done to make things fairer for a downtrodden population. The only truly fair move is to treat people like individuals and not based on the color of their skin, but the left is simply incapable of doing so.
Tucker Carlson said on his podcast that he is catching rumors of depraved "orgies" in Washington D.C, although he won't name any names.
The depravity of the ruling class has long been a theme in Carlson's commentary, but he still finds himself shocked by scandalous reports of "weirder and weirder" behavior among politicians.
While he did not get into specifics, Carlson said that he is beginning to hear about "orgies" for the first time after following politics his whole life.
Carlson shared his thoughts during a wide-ranging chat with House Republican Tim Burchett (TN), who has faced backlash for claiming that lawmakers are controlled with blackmail.
"I have noticed, just having spent my life in D.C., that people's personal lives are getting weirder in the Congress. Have you noticed that?" Carlson asked Burchett.
"Without implicating anyone by name, I don't think I'm imagining this. It's not just sleeping with your scheduler, it's weirder than that now. Have you noticed that?"
"I try to stay in my office as much as possible," responded Burchett.
"I just want to say for the record, I have never heard of anybody participating in an orgy in Washington D.C. in my entire life and I have heard a lot about it recently," Carlson said.
"I wasn't there, I'm not going there, but I think that's real," Carlson added.
"I don't know if it is or it isn't. I hope that it isn't, I would like to think that it isn't, but I've never been invited," Burchett said.
Earlier in the show, Burchett repeated claims he has made in the past about conservative, church-going lawmakers in D.C. being "compromised" with sexual blackmail in "honeypot" schemes.
Burchett also alleged that many politicians are now "owned" through less salacious methods, with lawmakers lining up cushy jobs for wives and mistresses in exchange for government favors.
"Get my wife a job, get my girl a job," Carlon said, describing how the system allegedly works.
"Get them both a job and keep them separate," Burchett said.
Burchett also mentioned a Chinese prostitution ring operating in D.C. whose clients included "high-ranking officials in government."
"Who was their client list?" he said. "High-ranking officials in government, elected officials, and lobbyists."
Burchett appeared to be referring to a high-end prostitution ring in D.C. that was busted in 2023, whose customers allegedly included elected lawmakers, military officers and other powerful people.
Congress was rocked by a notable sex scandal in 2023, when a graphic sex tape of two gay men inside a Senate hearing room went public, leading to the Democratic staffer involved getting fired.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's plane made an emergency landing in England over a cracked windshield, the Daily Mail reported.
The incident occurred as Hegseth was returning from a trip to Europe, where he gave a stern warning to Russia over the war in Ukraine.
According to reports, Hegseth's C-32 jet was flying over the Atlantic when it was forced to turn back for an unscheduled stop in the United Kingdom. No one was injured.
"On the way back to the United States from NATO’s Defense Ministers meeting, Secretary of War Hegseth’s plane made an unscheduled landing in the United Kingdom due to a crack in the aircraft windshield. The plane landed based on standard procedures and everyone onboard, including Secretary Hegseth, is safe," said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.
Hegseth confirmed he is doing fine in a post, writing, "All good. Thank God. Continue mission!"
During his meeting with NATO leaders in Brussels, Hegseth warned that America will "impose costs" on Russia if necessary.
“If there is no path to peace in the short term, then the United States, along with our allies, will take the steps necessary to impose costs on Russia for its continued aggression,” Hegseth said. “If we must take this step, the U.S. War Department stands ready to do our part in ways that only the United States can do.”
Trump is facing a critical decision as Ukraine seeks Tomahawk missiles from the U.S. that are capable of striking deep into Russia.
When asked about Tomahawks on Thursday, Trump said "we can't deplete" the US stockpile, noting "we need them too... so I don't know what we can do about that."
Trump will host Ukraine's President Zelensky at the White House on Friday, and their meeting is expected to be much friendlier than Trump's Oval Office smackdown in February, when Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance upbraided Zelensky for failing to show gratitude for U.S. support.
Since then, Trump has pivoted sharply towards a more pro-Ukrainian stance as he grows frustrated with Vladimir Putin for prolonging the war with his continued military aggression.
Last month, Trump expressed his view that Ukraine could win back all of its land from Russia, which Trump called a "paper tiger."
But Trump is not abandoning diplomacy, either.
A day before meeting with Zelensky, Trump announced that he and Putin had a "very productive" talk and that they will meet soon in Hungary to continue negotiating.