Barack Obama lashed out at Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) after she anointed Kamala Harris as the Democrats' nominee in the summer of 2024, according to a new book on last year's tumultuous presidential election.
Obama felt that Pelosi was blowing up his delicate plans to manage Joe Biden's chaotic exit from the race, which was orchestrated by Obama and other party elites who lacked confidence in Biden's ability to beat President Trump.
It has long been suspected that Obama lacked confidence in Harris as well, and he was not happy when Pelosi followed Biden's rapid endorsement with her own.
"The Obamas were not happy,” a Pelosi confidant told Jonathan Karl, author of Retribution, according to an excerpt obtained by the Daily Mail.
“This person summed up Obama’s message to Pelosi as, essentially, ‘What the f–k did you just do?’”
An Obama source disputed that characterization and said Obama gave Pelosi a "good-natured ribbing," but a Pelosi source said he sounded “genuinely irritated."
Whatever his tone may have been, there's no question that Obama saw Harris' nomination as a disaster - and, whatever you think of Obama, he was right about that.
According to the book, Obama assumed that he and Pelosi were in quiet agreement that a competitive process should play out to find a new nominee.
It wasn't just Obama who had that impression. Harris was also told by Pelosi that the Speaker wanted a miniature primary instead of a coronation, according to Harris' memoir 107 Days.
Five days before he reluctantly endorsed Harris, Obama expressed "confidence" that the party's leaders would select an "outstanding nominee."
But within 24 hours of Biden dropping out, Pelosi shared her endorsement expressing "full confidence" in the bumbling vice president. When Obama called Pelosi to complain, she explained that the horse had left the barn with Biden's endorsement.
“That train has left the station,” Pelosi told Obama during the call.
Some have speculated that Biden's quick endorsement of Harris was his way of getting back at Obama, who had played a shadowy role in forcing Biden to end his campaign.
Feelings of resentment have continued to fester, with Biden's son Hunter telling Karl that he was angry at Obama for leading Joe off stage at a re-election fundraiser.
“I almost jumped up on the stage and said, ‘Don’t ever f‑‑‑ing do that to the president of the United States again — ever,” Hunter added.
House Republicans have released a new report on Joe Biden's presidency that calls for many of his executive actions to be struck down, citing the former president's cognitive decline and a lack of documentation proving that he was aware of his decisions.
The 100-page House Oversight Committee report, from chairman James Comer (Ky.), declares that many of Biden's moves, including his sweeping pardons in his final days in office, are "null and void" without evidence that he himself authorized them, the New York Post reported.
“The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle. Nor can it be delegated to particular staff when a president’s competency is in question,” the report notes. “Importantly, even if this authority could be delegated — which it cannot — it would have to be expressly delegated by President Biden himself.”
The report takes aim at "extremely loyal staff" who helped orchestrate an elaborate cover-up, with the Republicans noting in their report that "not one" of the committee's 14 witnesses admitted to having concerns about Biden's cognitive health.
The report takes special aim at Kevin O'Connor, Biden's White House doctor, who repeatedly vouched for Biden's health during his presidency despite never administering a cognitive test. O'Connor declined to answer the committee's questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. Deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and Jill Biden's chief of staff Anthony Bernal also refused to answer any questions.
The Republicans' report condemns political interference in medical decision-making concerning Biden, with top advisers admitting that they weighed the political risk of Biden taking a cognitive test as questions swirled about his fitness.
“We did not have any concern about his ability to pass those tests,” said top adviser Anita Dunn. "We did not think it would help politically.”
Democrats, after distancing themselves from Biden since their 2024 defeat, are defending him against the GOP's charges.
"Despite this sham investigation, every White House official testified President Biden fully executed his duties as President of the United States. The testimonies also make it clear the former President authorized every executive order, pardon, and use of the autopen," House Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia said in a statement to ABC News.
In some of his final actions as president, Biden issued thousands of acts of clemency, including pardons for members of his own family and commutations for brutal killers on death row. Biden's blanket pardon for his son Hunter was one of the handful that he signed personally.
Biden admitted to the New York Times in July that he did not sign many pardons individually, instead leaving the details to his staff.
When asked by the Oversight Committee who controlled the autopen, Biden's chief of staff Jeff Zients could not say - but he defended the integrity of the process, noting Biden would provide verbal consent "on occasion."
Without reliable documentation proving Biden's involvement, pardons that were signed with the autopen should be declared "null and void," Republicans said.
"This investigation into baseless claims has confirmed what has been clear from the start: President Biden made the decisions of his presidency,” a spokesperson for Biden said in a statement. “There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, and no wrongdoing. Congressional Republicans should stop focusing on political retribution and instead work to end the government shutdown.”
Republicans have called on attorney general Pam Bondi to investigate Biden's executive actions - but since the pardon power is absolute, it is not clear what practical mechanism there is for Republicans to "void" Biden's decisions.
The Supreme Court is likely to limit the scope of a landmark civil rights law that has long boosted Democratic representation in the House of Representatives, with Republicans set to gain potentially 12 seats or more, the Hill reported.
The case centers on a map in Louisiana that was redrawn to create an additional district where black voters can elect their preferred candidate. White voters in the state say the new map illegally discriminates on the basis of race, an argument that the conservative majority appears to be receptive towards.
When the Supreme Court teed up a rare second round of arguments, it was widely seen as a signal that big changes were forthcoming.
The case centers on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states to devise majority-minority districts to protect the voting power of racial minorities.
During the second round of arguments this month, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that race-based redistricting should eventually be phased out, echoing the court's reasoning for striking down affirmative action in college admissions.
“This Court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. "But that they should not be indefinite and should have a end point.”
Similarly, Justice Neil Gorsuch sounded skeptical that states may “intentionally discriminate on the basis of race" to fulfill Voting Rights Act requirements.
The Supreme Court has limited the Voting Rights Act before, previously striking down a federal preclearance requirement limiting the freedom of states and localities to change voting practices.
Two of the court's conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed to breathe new life into the Voting Rights Act two years ago when they sided with the liberal wing in a controversy out of Alabama. But Roberts has also signaled that his decision-making in that case does not control how he will vote on the matter in Louisiana.
Long seen as the court's swing vote, Roberts has been a skeptic of racial formulas for years, writing in a 2006 case, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."
While the Voting Rights Act's advocates say it is critical to an inclusive democracy, critics of the law argue it has resulted in new forms of discrimination with no end in sight, leaving courts with a complicated legal mess to sort through. There is a sense that the justices would like to be rid of the "sordid business" once and for all.
Following this month's arguments, Louisiana's attorney general Liz Murrill (R) said the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Voting Rights Act is confusing even to the justices themselves.
The court, she said, has to “make some sense” of its own Section 2 precedents.
"And what we heard today is that that’s really hard — even for them,” she added.
To many, the question seems to be not whether the conservative majority will rein in race-based redistricting, but how far they will go.
A New York Times analysis predicts that Republicans across the South could gain over a dozen congressional seats if Section 2 is curtailed. Some liberal groups estimate as many as 19 new Republican districts.
“This case will test whether the arc of our universe still bends toward justice — or whether it has bent back upon itself,” Alanah Odoms, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, said in a statement.
Canada just found out the hard way that misrepresenting and/or disrespecting the late, great President Ronald Reagan is not a wise move, at least not while President Donald Trump is in the White House.
According to Breitbart, President Trump announced an extra 10% tariff on Canadian imports, "saying Canada aired a deceptive advertisement using altered audio and video of former President Ronald Reagan to undermine his administration’s tariff policy."
Trump announced that Canada had been caught "red-handed" using altered and out-of-context clips of Reagan, which didn't sit well with him, to say the least.
The anti-tariff commercial aired during the World Series, which was enough for Trump to levy the extra tariffs on America's neighbor to the north.
Breitbart noted:
The advertisement, produced by the government of Ontario, featured Reagan appearing to denounce tariffs, prompting an immediate response from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.
President Trump, in his response to the situation, cited the respond from Reagan's institute.
Breitbart added:
In his Truth Social post, Trump cited a statement from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute that said that Canada had “created an ad campaign using selective audio and video of President Ronald Reagan,” and that the material “misrepresents the Presidential Radio Address.”
Notably, the institute added that Canada “did not seek nor receive permission to use and edit the remarks” and was “reviewing its legal options."
"The sole purpose of this FRAUD was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their ‘rescue’ on Tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States," Trump wrote.
He added, "Now the United States is able to defend itself against high and overbearing Canadian Tariffs (and those from the rest of the World as well!). Ronald Reagan LOVED Tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy, but Canada said he didn’t!"
Many Canadians were angry at its country's leadership over the ad, which will cost them.
🚨Breaking: Donald Trump is increasing tariffs on Canada by another 10% because of Ontario's anti-tariff add using Ronald Reagan.
How did Doug Ford, his advisors, and Prime Minister Mark Carney - who knew about it, all think this was a good idea?! pic.twitter.com/dejdxO46VZ
— Kirk Lubimov (@KirkLubimov) October 25, 2025
"Undiplomatic morons are in charge of this country," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "And more adds are coming from other Canadian premiers. I for one don’t understand what their strategy is, but if I were Canadian I would think it’s beyond reckless. Trump Admin officials are basically fed up with Canada."
While Democrats keep the government in shutdown mode, hardworking U.S. troops and other federal workers are at risk of not receiving their paychecks, but luckily, President Donald Trump is working overtime to change that.
According to the New York Post, the president dropped a bombshell this week about an anonymous $130 million donation to the Pentagon from a "friend" of President Trump to help offset the costs of paying the troops during the shutdown.
The Pentagon confirmed the donation, saying it received it through its "general gift acceptance authority."
President Trump was able to find unused research and development funds to make sure that troops were paid during their Oct. 15 pay period.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell released a statement regarding the staggering donation.
“On Oct. 23, 2025, the Department of War accepted an anonymous donation of $130 million under its general gift acceptance authority,” Parnell said.
He added, "The donation was made on the condition that it be used to offset the cost of service members’ salaries and benefits. We are grateful for this donor’s assistance after Democrats opted to withhold pay from troops."
The Pentagon confirmed Friday it has accepted an anonymous $130 million donation to help pay troops if the government shutdown continues — a bill expected to cost some $6.8 billion in total. https://t.co/4IhkbSx3wO pic.twitter.com/gPIhUaLDXp
— ABC News (@ABC) October 25, 2025
Some legal experts have expressed concerns that the administration might not be legally able to use the money to pay troops, at least without congressional authorization.
"The department is welcome to acknowledge this donor’s intent, but that does not change the legal restrictions on Congress needing to appropriate funds to pay military salaries," said Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute.
While the number is staggering for most, it still won't cover nearly enough to ensure all troops get paid.
Reportedly, it takes about $6.5 billion per pay period to get members of the military their paychecks, so $130 million, compared to that number, is only good for about one-third of a day's pay, surprisingly.
Still, the gesture is amazing and it simply highlights how stubborn and goofy Democrats are being in refusing to open up the government so our troops get what's rightfully theirs.
It'll be interesting to see if any additional private donors come forward to help offset costs.
In an emotional dissent, the Supreme Court's liberal wing condemned the use of nitrogen gas to kill condemned criminals as a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."
The fiery dissent came after the court's majority declined to stop the execution of Anthony Boyd, an Alabama man convicted of burning a man to death over a $200 debt, CNN reported.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused her conservative colleagues of prolonging Boyd's suffering by denying his request to die by firing squad.
"The Constitution would grant him that grace,” Sotomayor wrote. “My colleagues do not. This court thus turns its back on Boyd and on the Eighth Amendment’s guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment.”
Sotomayor urged the reader to set a four-minute timer and imagine they can't breathe.
“Now imagine for that entire time, you are suffocating,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “You want to breathe; you have to breathe. But you are strapped to a gurney with a mask on your face pumping your lungs with nitrogen gas.”
“Your mind knows that the gas will kill you,” she continued. “But your body keeps telling you to breathe.”
Boyd is among a handful of people who have been executed with nitrogen since Alabama first used the controversial method in 2024. It was adopted as an alternative to lethal injections, which have become more difficult to perform due to drug shortages.
In her dissent, Sotomayor said the use of nitrogen gas is "not at all what it was promised to be" and that the condemned can experience "up to seven full minutes of conscious, excruciating suffocation."
The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for denying Boyd's petition. A federal judge who rejected Boyd's request noted the Eighth Amendment "does not guarantee Boyd a painless death" and that those condemned to die inevitably experience feelings of terror.
"Walking to the gallows, feeling the electric chair’s straps tighten, having a target affixed to one’s chest, or being secured to a gurney each evokes strong feelings that death is imminent and results in corresponding psychological and emotional pain," U.S. District Judge Emily Marks wrote.
Witnesses of Boyd's execution Thursday told the New York Times that he convulsed for about 15 minutes before he was pronounced dead.
Boyd's victim, Gregory Huguley, was bound to a bench, doused in gasoline, and burned alive by a group of four men including Boyd, who duct-taped the victim's feet. The killers watched Huguley burn for up to 15 minutes until the fire went out.
Moments before the gas was administered, Boyd maintained his innocence of the crime.
“I just wanna say again, I didn’t kill anybody, I didn’t participate in killing anybody,” Boyd said. “I just want everyone to know, there is no justice in this state.”
Kanala Harris' looooong 2024 hangover isn't over yet, as her splashy bachelorette party of a "presidential campaign" continues to burden Democrats with eye-watering bills, placing the party at a disadvantage with Republicans.
In September alone, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid off $1.6 million in campaign debts. The DNC has now paid $20 million to cover Kamala's campaign debt, Axios reports, and Democrats "aren't sure how much more outstanding debt there is."
The extravagant cost of Kamala's failed bid has contributed to a cash disadvantage with the Republican National Committee, which currently has $86 million in cash on hand compared to the DNC's $12 million.
Riding a wave of hype and manufactured "joy," Kamala doled out huge wads of cash for celebrity appearances and six-figure studio sets, shelling out $1.5 billion across a mere 107 days after receiving a rushed coronation from her party.
Democrats are still reeling from Harris' decisive defeat to President Trump, who won all seven swing states and the popular vote as the electorate shifted rightward across the nation.
Dampened enthusiasm since Kamala's defeat has discouraged donors from giving to the DNC, adding to the party's cash woes.
The Wall Street Journal reports that donors snubbed a fundraiser headlined by Harris earlier this year, with one person replying to the invite with profanity.
The chilly reception reflects ongoing skepticism among donors about contributing to the Democratic party, which remains adrift almost a year since Harris' loss.
"There is just a broad consensus that the DNC is ineffectual and not where we should be giving money,” one former donor told the New York Post in June.
Democrats are facing some tight races this November, with party members fearful of an upset in New Jersey's key gubernatorial race.
Meanwhile, Kamala is still opening up fresh wounds in her party, peddling a tell-all book about her failed campaign and the political jockeying that took place behind the scenes as Joe Biden's re-election bid imploded.
In the book, Kamala shares that top power brokers like Barack Obama did not rush to endorse her and instead believed she needed to prove she was worthy.
But those concerns fell by the wayside as Democrats bypassed any semblance of democratic process to anoint her the hope of "Our Democracy."
Despite being rejected by the nation and now her own party, Kamala is not ruling out another presidential run in 2028 as she continues to live in denial about her defeat.
"Well, some people have actually said I was the most qualified candidate ever to run for president," she said in a recent interview.
Just days after he floated another round of Ukraine peace talks, President Trump has called off plans to meet with Vladimir Putin.
A White House official confirmed that Trump is not meeting his Russian counterpart "in the immediate future" after Trump suggested a summit in Hungary, ABC reported.
Trump's reversal comes after a phone call on Monday between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
"Secretary Rubio and Foreign Minister Lavrov had a productive call. Therefore, an additional in person meeting between the Secretary and Foreign Minister is not necessary, and there are no plans for President Trump to meet with President Putin in the immediate future," the White House official said.
Trump has called for an immediate cease-fire along the current line of conflict, a proposal that Ukraine backs, and Russia opposes.
The cease-fire became a point of contention during Rubio's phone call with Lavrov, who says the Trump administration has grown less receptive to Russia's point of view.
"Now, Washington is saying that we need to stop immediately and not discuss anything further. We need to stop and let history decide. You see, if we just stop, we will forget about the root causes of this conflict, which the American administration clearly understood when Donald Trump came to power," Lavrov said.
While Trump is touting a cease-fire in Gaza, securing peace in Ukraine has proven more difficult.
In August, Trump and Putin met in Alaska for a peace summit that led to no conclusive results. After a phone call with Putin last Thursday, Trump announced another meeting "within two weeks or so" to try to hash out an end to the war.
Just hours after Trump confirmed he would not be meeting with Putin in Budapest, Russia conducted strikes in Ukraine that killed at least seven, including two children.
In comments to reporters Tuesday, Trump said that meeting with Putin right now would be a waste of time.
“I don’t want to have a wasted meeting; I don’t want to have a waste of time,” Trump said at the White House.
Ukraine's president Zelensky has argued that Putin is stalling for time and that he is not facing enough pressure to end the war.
Zelensky returned to the White House last Friday to lobby Trump for Tomahawk missiles that can strike deep inside Russia, but Trump has declined to provide them, for now.
The average price for a gallon of gas is below $3 across America for the first time in four years, giving consumers a sense of normalcy after costs surged in the Biden era.
The White House is touting the news as proof that President Trump has kept his promise to ease the cost-of-living, which became a major campaign issue in 2024. According to analysis from GasBuddy, the average gas price is now $2.98, having fallen 15 cents per gallon in one year.
This is the cheapest that gas has been since the 2020, when demand for gas collapsed during the COVID lockdowns.
"Gas prices have finally fallen below $3 per gallon nationally — the earliest date we’ve seen a $2.99 national average since 2020, when COVID was the primary driver of low prices,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.
There's more good news to come, says De Haan: "Barring any major disruptions, gas prices are likely to remain slightly below year-ago levels and could stay under $3 for much of the next few months.”
Of course, prices vary widely based on location. At one station in Colorado, gas is under $2 per gallon. On the other hand, gas is the most expensive in California, where it costs an average of $4.60 per gallon.
Compare that to the state's all-time high of $6.437 for a gallon of regular unleaded in June 2022.
So, who deserves the credit for the current trade of lower prices?
GasBuddy isn't rushing to give Trump any: “OPEC+ deserves much of the credit for this trend, having steadily raised oil production for much of 2025," De Haan said.
Some analysts have linked increased oil production by OPEC+ to pressure from President Trump.
Even the anti-Trump New York Times has acknowledged that OPEC+ appears to be appeasing Trump by keeping oil prices low.
The Trump administration has attributed the drop in prices to Trump's emphasis on "energy dominance," an approach he summarized as "drill baby drill" on the campaign trail last year.
For Trump and his team, cheap gas is a simple and tangible achievement that shows Trump is keeping his promises to voters.
“President Trump understands that energy dominance is a key driver for growing our economy and lowering costs — making good on a promise he repeatedly made on the campaign trail after years of Biden-induced economic disaster. In fact, under Biden, average gas prices remained above $3 per gallon for nearly the entirety of his presidency,” the White House said in a press release.
Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is leaving the Democratic party, citing its "horrible" treatment of former president Biden, Breitbart reports.
During her time as Biden's top spokesperson, Jean-Pierre was often criticized for her labored and unconvincing responses to tough questions about Biden's cognitive health and other topics. She has often been accused of helping to cover up Biden's decline, which became impossible to deny after a pivotal 2024 debate that led to the dramatic unraveling of his re-election campaign, and ultimately his entire political career.
Before throwing in the towel, Biden put up spirited resistance for a few weeks, raging at Democrat "elites" who had pressured him to quit, including his own former boss, Barack Obama.
In a move that blindsided Obama and other power brokers, Biden endorsed then-vice president Kamala Harris to take his place on the 2024 presidential ticket despite concerns about her competence, and she ended up losing decisively to President Trump in the general election.
The push to ditch Biden opened up a deep and lasting wound on the left, with Biden loyalists continuing to express anger over the way the lifelong Democrat was shoved aside - as Democrats persist in blaming Biden's unrealistic re-election hopes for their present woes.
In an excerpt from her book Independent, Jean-Pierre said she was stung by the Democrats' ambush of her former boss and surprised by Biden's eventual capitulation.
“Biden seemed to be totally at peace with his decision, but I was stunned, my feelings a blur. I was angry and sad. I was enraged and heartbroken that this man had given more than 50 years of his life to serving the American people, and in the end he’d been treated poorly by members of his own party. It was horrible,” she wrote.
Jean-Pierre acknowledged that leaving the Democratic party is not easy for her, given the central importance of the party machine in her own professional rise.
"The party was the vehicle that allowed me not just to have a front seat to history, working first on [Barack] Obama’s presidential campaign then in his administration, but also to make some history of my own as the first Black woman and openly queer person to ever be a White House press secretary. Never had I considered leaving the party until now," she wrote.
With her former party's brand in the gutter, some may be led to think Jean-Pierre is making a calculated career move as she embraces a vague "independent" label. Democrats responded angrily to her book announcement in June, dismissing her pivot as an opportunistic "grift" or cash grab.
But she insists her disillusionment with Democrats is genuine.
“You know what? I’m going to become an independent. I don’t think I can stomach being in the Democratic Party anymore,” she writes in the book.
During a discussion of her book on CBS, Jean-Pierre doubled down on her previous statements concerning Biden's mental acuity, insisting she never observed warning signs of cognitive decline.
"But when we talk about the mental acuity, and again, I take this very, very seriously, I never saw anyone who wasn’t there," she said.