Featured Stories:
Justice Amy Coney Barrett admits Trump could be beyond the Supreme Court’s control
In an interview released on Thursday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Comey Barrett had to be asked twice what the nation’s highest court would do if Donald Trump turned up his nose at an adverse ruling and refused to abide by it.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Barrett was first asked about the extent of the president’s power over the government that has been a central tenet of Trump’s second term as his inner circle has pushed the so-called “unitary executive theory" that slots him above the legislative and judicial branches of government.
According to Trump’s last appointee to the court, who replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, “It would imply strong presidential power over executive agencies. There has been a lot of debate and some new originalist scholarship debating right now whether indeed it has sound originalist credentials. But yes, it is one that has traditionally been associated with originalists.”
She then noted that debate is currently being addressed “in some of the cases on the court’s docket now.”
With that looming over the court as an avalanche of challenges to the current president are overwhelming federal courts, Douthat pointed out to the justice, “The Supreme Court does not command the power of the purse, doesn’t command the military, doesn’t have police powers. What it has, in a sense, is prestige, public support, a historic constitutional role.”
Adding, “... we’re in a moment — and we don’t have to make this specific to the Trump White House — when it’s very easy to imagine, from either the left or the right, some present or future president deciding to test the court, Andrew Jackson-style, saying: Interesting ruling, Justice Barrett. Good luck enforcing it,” he proposed, “How do you think about that potential challenge, as a member of the court?”
Admitting the NYT columnist was correct, Coney Barrett attempted, “... just as the court must take account of the consequences on the institutional dynamics, say, between a current president and a future president, the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch, that of course, those same kinds of institutional concerns for the long run are ones that play a part in the court’s separation of powers decisions and always have, because they also are reflected in concerns of the constitutional structure.”
Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity in her answer, Douthat pressed, “OK, let me try that again: If a president defied the Supreme Court, what would you do?”
Coney Barrett then admitted that the court’s hands would be tied because there is no enforcement mechanism at their disposal.
“Well, as you say, the court lacks the power of the purse. We lack the power of the sword,” she conceded. “And so, we interpret the Constitution, we draw on precedents, we have these questions of structure, and we make the most with the tools that we have.”
You can read her entire interview here.
‘Give me a break!’ Tom Homan flees reporters as he refuses to deny taking $50K bribe
Border czar Tom Homan dodged reporters at the White House as he refused to say if he took a $50,000 cash bribe in an FBI sting.
Despite finding time for a Fox News interview on Thursday, Homan immediately turned and walked quickly to avoid other reporters at the White House.
"I don't have time today, folks. I'm 20 minutes late," he said.
"Did you take the $50,000 cash in a bag?" one reporter shouted.
"Give me a break!" Homan responded as he fled.
After reports emerged last month that Homan had taken $50,000 cash from undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen seeking government contracts, Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked him about the allegations.
"I did nothing criminal or illegal," the border czar said without denying that he took the cash. The Fox News host declined to ask a follow-up question.
"This response will likely trigger more reporters to ask [the] same question," CBS News correspondent Scott MacFarlane predicted after Homan dodged the question on Thursday.
‘We defended that evil ideology’: Mike Johnson makes horrific gaffe in Nazi speech
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) made a horrific apparent gaffe when discussing a swastika spotted in a Republican congressman's office.
U.S. Capitol Police were called to investigate a display of an American flag altered to show the Nazi symbol pinned to a wall in a cubicle used by Angelo Elia, a staffer for Rep. Dave Taylor (R-OH), and the GOP speaker attempted to distance the party from fascist ideology.
"With regard to the swastika thing, this happened last night, a Republican congressman, allegedly, one of his staffers had something in the background, something in a Zoom, that's what I heard this morning," Johnson told reporters. "He says that that's not his and there was a proper investigation ongoing, and the congressman did exactly what he should have done, and that is report it. It's under investigation, and I can't comment on it any further until that's done."
The swastika display was noticed a day after Politico reported on a Young Republican group chat where organization leaders used racial slurs, joked about the Holocaust, celebrated slavery and rape, and praised Adolf Hitler.
"But I will say, obviously, that is not the principles of the Republican Party," Johnson said. "We stand for the founding principles of America – want me to articulate them for you right now? Individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, human dignity – the things that lead to human flourishing."
"We have stood against that, we have fought against the Nazis," Johnson added, and then apparently misspoke before insisting Nazi sympathies were a problem in both parties. "We defended that evil ideology. We roundly condemn it, and anybody in any party who espouses it, we're opposing that."
Epic Freudian slip
"We fought the Nazis, we defended that evil ideology" -Mike Johnson pic.twitter.com/uvVcUtNBJT
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) October 16, 2025
‘I never said move on!’ Charlie Kirk backtracks after caving to Trump on Epstein
MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk sought to calm his audience after initially saying he was "done talking" about President Donald Trump's Jeffrey Epstein controversy.
On his Tuesday podcast, Kirk noted that media outlets — including Raw Story — had reported on his attempt to avoid discussing the Trump administration's decision not to release additional files from the Epstein case. On Monday, Kirk said that he wanted to discuss other topics after reportedly receiving a call from Trump.
"This is a total obsessive hoax," Kirk said of the media coverage on Tuesday. "And even some people were emailing me, Charlie, why are you not talking about Epstein? Why are you saying to move on? I never, ever, ever said move on, ever!"
"I didn't whisper it. I didn't think it. I didn't say it," he continued. "But let me say this again. You know my opinion about Epstein. The messaging fumble."
But on Monday, he said, "Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration, I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, ball's in their hands."
Kirk said he was making "an addendum to what was said yesterday."
"We're going to keep on talking about it," he insisted. "You see, but what's so disappointing, not disappointing, to an extent I get it, is that the MAGA base is so fired up about this. And that's why I didn't take a lot of this seriously. Is that, you know, people were incoming, Charlie, why are you moving on? No one's saying that!"
"And of course, I don't trust the deep state," he added. "I trust people that I have known for years... And if there's one thing I've learned from you guys in the grassroots in this audience, you are not letting this story go."
‘We’re not recording, right?’ Ken Paxton aide unwittingly spills on secret plan
A top deputy for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton unknowingly spilled the Republican administration's plan to undermine clean energy efforts in favor of the oil and gas Texas is known for, according to reporting in Rolling Stone.
Reporter Lauren Windsor obtained a secret recording of Paxton's top deputy, First Assistant AG Brent Webster, speaking in January to a group of conservatives and fossil fuel advocates.
“We’re not recording this, right?" Webster is heard saying. "Please don’t quote me, because I’m telling the inside story on this.”
On the recording, Webster "recalled how his office moved to cut off lucrative bond business to Wells Fargo," Windsor wrote. "Webster then shared how he, in a private dinner at the governor’s mansion with Gov. Greg Abbott, Paxton, and the bank’s execs, told the bank Texas could 'reinstate the bond market' if it left the Net Zero Banking Alliance," with a mandate to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
When the Wells Fargo team seemed to balk, Webster bragged that he could easily file an antitrust lawsuit against them "right now."
The Texas AG's office was successful using the method against BlackRock and other major management firms" in the past. Windsor wrote. So much so that when Webster called up Wells Fargo and warned, 'you guys might be next,' it worked."
Wells Fargo left the Net Zero Banking Alliance a week later, Webster said, and then all the banks "started dropping like flies."
Once the banks abandoned the clean energy crusade, "Paxton allowed them to get municipal bond business again," Windsor wrote. She was unable to obtain comment from Paxton's office for the piece.
‘Spine-chilling’ scenario laid out for next year’s midterms: ‘It’s not paranoid’
President Donald Trump has declared his intention to campaign on the deeply unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which one analyst said should be an ominous sign for how he views next year's midterm elections.
Both the president and the domestic policy legislation he pressured Republicans to pass are unpopular with voters, but Salon columnist Heath Digby Parton said his midterm strategy was only risky insofar as next year's elections are free and fair.
"Trump is a man with an unprecedented track record of trying to overturn elections," Parton wrote. "There was a time when many Americans thought his behavior following the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was so egregious that he should be prosecuted and, at the very least, never be allowed near elective office again. Those days are long past, and Trump’s return to the presidency has emboldened him."
"While his decimation of any semblance of Justice Department independence is troubling," she added, it’s downright spine-chilling when it comes to elections."
The president has an eager and obliging attorney general in Pam Bondi, and her deputies are his former personal lawyers, and Trump has tasked them with rooting out the types of election fraud that he has baselessly claimed cost him the 2020 contest – which Parton says could give him to pretext to tamper with future results.
"Back in March, he signed an executive order requiring voters to present proof of citizenship to vote and all ballots to be received by election day, not simply postmarked as many states allow," Parton wrote. "He also called on states to share voter lists and prosecute election crimes, threatening to pull federal funding if they refuse. Ostensibly to prevent fraud, he ordered states to cease using barcode or QR code in the vote counting process, which would bar many jurisdictions from using voting machines. Trump and his minions fatuously insisted this was being done to restore faith in the electoral process — faith that was shaken by his 'Big Lie.'"
Those orders are being challenged in court, but the Justice Department continues to follow up on his directives, and Parton said that uncertainty could give Trump and his Republican allies space to tamper with election outcomes they don't like.
"All of this was foreshadowed by Project 2025, which laid out plans to create unprecedented federal interference in the way elections are managed," she wrote. "Based on Trump’s behavior and how closely he and the administration are following the Project 2025 blueprint, it’s not paranoid to expect, at minimum, court challenges to midterm election results in races that would shift the balance of power. And I wouldn’t bet too much money on the courts being as straightforwardly dismissive as they were the last time."
Parton expects Republicans to appeal losing results all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could cast congressional majorities in doubt until the 2028 presidential election is already underway.
"The midterms are only 16 months away, which is both a short time and an eternity," Parton wrote. "When it comes Trump’s thirst for absolute power and penchant for corruption makes it clear: Vigilance is a necessity."
‘A depraved lie’: Karoline Leavitt lashes out at Dems blaming Trump after flood
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt alleged that Democrats had blamed President Donald Trump for the recent deadly flooding in Texas.
During Monday's White House press conference, Leavitt lashed out at Trump's critics.
"Unfortunately, in the wake of this once-in-a-generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media," she said. "Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning."
The press secretary insisted that "the National Weather Service did its job" despite staffing cuts.
"The National Weather Service office in New Braunfels, which delivers forecasts for Austin, San Antonio, and the surrounding areas, had extra staff on duty during the storms, despite claims of the contrary," Leavitt asserted. "So to any person who has deliberately lied about these facts surrounding this catastrophic event, you should be deeply ashamed."
"May God bless the great people of Texas, especially the parents who have lost their children," she added. "President Trump loves you."
‘A depraved lie’: Karoline Leavitt lashes out at Dems blaming Trump after flood
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt alleged that Democrats had blamed President Donald Trump for the recent deadly flooding in Texas.
During Monday's White House press conference, Leavitt lashed out at Trump's critics.
"Unfortunately, in the wake of this once-in-a-generation natural disaster, we have seen many falsehoods pushed by Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer and some members of the media," she said. "Blaming President Trump for these floods is a depraved lie, and it serves no purpose during this time of national mourning."
The press secretary insisted that "the National Weather Service did its job" despite staffing cuts.
"The National Weather Service office in New Braunfels, which delivers forecasts for Austin, San Antonio, and the surrounding areas, had extra staff on duty during the storms, despite claims of the contrary," Leavitt asserted. "So to any person who has deliberately lied about these facts surrounding this catastrophic event, you should be deeply ashamed."
"May God bless the great people of Texas, especially the parents who have lost their children," she added. "President Trump loves you."
Ana Navarro warns Melania: ‘If my citizenship can be taken away so can yours’
"The View" Republican — and "Never Trumper" — host Ana Navarro warned First Lady Melania Trump that her citizenship could be removed if President Donald Trump is allowed to strip others of it.
Speaking on Monday's episode of "The View," the co-hosts were talking about Elon Musk's new political party and the reasons that he isn't the best poster boy for it.
"What I found very interesting is that Trump says that he's looking at deporting Musk as the feud reignites and Musk didn't seem to have a problem with his companies getting all sorts of, you know, wonderful contracts for his SpaceX," said Sunny Hostin.
"The Department of Justice is now prioritizing seeking to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens," Hostin added.
"Girl, don't give them any ideas," Navarro chimed in.
"Somebody should remind Trump that his wife is a naturalized citizen," Navarro noted.
"She sure is," agreed Hostin.
"If my naturalized citizenship can be taken away, then so can hers by somebody else in the future," Navarro quipped.
Navarro was born in Nicaragua, and her family fled to the U.S. to escape political instability in the country. Melania Trump was born in Eastern Europe in what is now Slovenia. She entered the U.S. in 2001 under the EB-1 visa, also known as the "Einstein visa," which is designed to recruit the top talent of the world to come to the U.S. Melania Trump was working as a model at the time.
Popular articles
Justice Amy Coney Barrett admits Trump could be beyond the Supreme Court’s control
In an interview released on Thursday, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Comey Barrett had to be asked twice what the nation’s highest court would do if Donald Trump turned up his nose at an adverse ruling and refused to abide by it.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Barrett was first asked about the extent of the president’s power over the government that has been a central tenet of Trump’s second term as his inner circle has pushed the so-called “unitary executive theory" that slots him above the legislative and judicial branches of government.
According to Trump’s last appointee to the court, who replaced the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2020, “It would imply strong presidential power over executive agencies. There has been a lot of debate and some new originalist scholarship debating right now whether indeed it has sound originalist credentials. But yes, it is one that has traditionally been associated with originalists.”
She then noted that debate is currently being addressed “in some of the cases on the court’s docket now.”
With that looming over the court as an avalanche of challenges to the current president are overwhelming federal courts, Douthat pointed out to the justice, “The Supreme Court does not command the power of the purse, doesn’t command the military, doesn’t have police powers. What it has, in a sense, is prestige, public support, a historic constitutional role.”
Adding, “... we’re in a moment — and we don’t have to make this specific to the Trump White House — when it’s very easy to imagine, from either the left or the right, some present or future president deciding to test the court, Andrew Jackson-style, saying: Interesting ruling, Justice Barrett. Good luck enforcing it,” he proposed, “How do you think about that potential challenge, as a member of the court?”
Admitting the NYT columnist was correct, Coney Barrett attempted, “... just as the court must take account of the consequences on the institutional dynamics, say, between a current president and a future president, the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch, that of course, those same kinds of institutional concerns for the long run are ones that play a part in the court’s separation of powers decisions and always have, because they also are reflected in concerns of the constitutional structure.”
Unsatisfied with the lack of clarity in her answer, Douthat pressed, “OK, let me try that again: If a president defied the Supreme Court, what would you do?”
Coney Barrett then admitted that the court’s hands would be tied because there is no enforcement mechanism at their disposal.
“Well, as you say, the court lacks the power of the purse. We lack the power of the sword,” she conceded. “And so, we interpret the Constitution, we draw on precedents, we have these questions of structure, and we make the most with the tools that we have.”
You can read her entire interview here.
‘Give me a break!’ Tom Homan flees reporters as he refuses to deny taking $50K bribe
Border czar Tom Homan dodged reporters at the White House as he refused to say if he took a $50,000 cash bribe in an FBI sting.
Despite finding time for a Fox News interview on Thursday, Homan immediately turned and walked quickly to avoid other reporters at the White House.
"I don't have time today, folks. I'm 20 minutes late," he said.
"Did you take the $50,000 cash in a bag?" one reporter shouted.
"Give me a break!" Homan responded as he fled.
After reports emerged last month that Homan had taken $50,000 cash from undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen seeking government contracts, Fox News host Laura Ingraham asked him about the allegations.
"I did nothing criminal or illegal," the border czar said without denying that he took the cash. The Fox News host declined to ask a follow-up question.
"This response will likely trigger more reporters to ask [the] same question," CBS News correspondent Scott MacFarlane predicted after Homan dodged the question on Thursday.
‘We defended that evil ideology’: Mike Johnson makes horrific gaffe in Nazi speech
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) made a horrific apparent gaffe when discussing a swastika spotted in a Republican congressman's office.
U.S. Capitol Police were called to investigate a display of an American flag altered to show the Nazi symbol pinned to a wall in a cubicle used by Angelo Elia, a staffer for Rep. Dave Taylor (R-OH), and the GOP speaker attempted to distance the party from fascist ideology.
"With regard to the swastika thing, this happened last night, a Republican congressman, allegedly, one of his staffers had something in the background, something in a Zoom, that's what I heard this morning," Johnson told reporters. "He says that that's not his and there was a proper investigation ongoing, and the congressman did exactly what he should have done, and that is report it. It's under investigation, and I can't comment on it any further until that's done."
The swastika display was noticed a day after Politico reported on a Young Republican group chat where organization leaders used racial slurs, joked about the Holocaust, celebrated slavery and rape, and praised Adolf Hitler.
"But I will say, obviously, that is not the principles of the Republican Party," Johnson said. "We stand for the founding principles of America – want me to articulate them for you right now? Individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, human dignity – the things that lead to human flourishing."
"We have stood against that, we have fought against the Nazis," Johnson added, and then apparently misspoke before insisting Nazi sympathies were a problem in both parties. "We defended that evil ideology. We roundly condemn it, and anybody in any party who espouses it, we're opposing that."
Epic Freudian slip
"We fought the Nazis, we defended that evil ideology" -Mike Johnson pic.twitter.com/uvVcUtNBJT
— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) October 16, 2025
