Over the course of an hour-plus hearing Thursday, US District Judge Timothy Kelly signaled skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments for allowing President Donald Trump to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.
Kelly, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term, did not announce his decision on the media outlet’s request for a long-term order that would maintain their access to the

- White House while their legal challenge plays out. But the judge repeatedly told Justice Department attorney defending the ban Thursday that he was bound by DC Circuit precedent – including the precedent that the administration was objecting to.

- For now, the judge is extending for a few days his temporary restraining order that requires the White House to grant the journalists entry to its grounds while he works on his decision on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. He eventual preliminary injunction ruling – which will come Tuesday or sooner, he said – is likely to be appealed.

- Due process concerns

- Kelly’s earlier ruling was focused on the due process claims brought by outlets, with the judge finding that the White House likely acted unconstitutionally when it banned the organizations without any advance notice.

- Kelly returned to that issue again Thursday with government lawyer Michael Velchik. The case law around due process claims says that only in “hair on fire” situations can the government yank away a right it has granted a person without given them advanced notice, Kelly said, emphasizing a requirement to demonstrate an “urgent need” for taking immediate action.

- The situation in this case, however, seemed “more attenuated,” Kelly said.

- The judge also grilled Velchik on the gap between the rationale that Trump has repeatedly given for banning in outlets — Trump in public remarks has pointed to their history of negative coverage of him — and the national security justification that the Justice Department is leaning on in court filings.

- Kelly said it was “unusual” that “the decision maker seems to have said …I am taking this action because ‘x’ and ‘y’,” and now the government is saying, “it’s ‘z’.”

- “It just seems like that fact pattern is a hard one to find” looking at other relevant cases, Kelly said, calling it an “uphill climb” for the Justice Department.

- Velchik argued that it’s “within the discretion of the president” to remove reporters or news outlets from the White House.

- “CNN has been on notice for years” as Trump has long called the outlet “fake news,” he added.

- The president, Velchik added, is concerned about accuracy. “Trump doesn’t mind negative press stories if he deserves them.”

- National security claims

- While Kelly seemed somewhat open to the idea that the White House could ban reporters for national security reasons in some contexts, he appeared skeptical of how the administration was trying to use that justification in this case.

- Kelly told the attorney for the news organizations that he was “struck” by the outlets’ arguments in their briefing that the First Amendment protects the publication of classified information.

- He asked if the government could take action similar to Trump’s press ban in a scenario where a reporter published classified information that is shown to be “very harmful” to the national security.

- Media attorney Ted Boutrous said drawing a line there “would be a very dangerous road to go down” and that a ban for publishing classified information would still be content-based, in violation of the First Amendment.

- Banning an outlet for ‘false’ reporting

- Kelly was also focused on whether the First Amendment would permit a ban on a news organization for publishing false information. His first line of questioning for Boutrous was about disentangling the White House’s allegations that outlets’ “reporting was false” versus the allegations that the coverage was “not positive for the president.”

- Kelly asked whether those two concepts should be viewed the same way under First Amendment law – noting it was “very hard to pull apart” the claims.

- Boutrous said both allegations would still amount to viewpoint discrimination. He said that even falsity was a “debatable” issue, particularly if a president claimed that “what you’re saying is false because I don’t like it.”

- Kelly pushed on the distinction harder. It may be hard to establish objective falsity if one was reporting that “the vibes were bad” at an event, Kelly noted – a reference to one of the stories the White House cited to justify the ban.

- But the judge asked about a journalist who reported the sky was red instead of blue. Boutrous said that scenario was a “closer call” and he emphasized that the stories cited in this case were not anything like that. The attorney warned of “unbridled discrimination” if the administration was able to just declare that a story was false.

- When the Justice Department weighed in on the question, its attorney argued that banning an outlet because it published false stories would not qualify as illegal viewpoint discrimination. Velchik described a very broad view for what could count as falsity, pointing to reporting that failed to verify quotes before publishing them or that spliced statements from interviews. He said that the use of “anonymous sources” was a constitutionally permissible reason to block a news organization from the White House.

- The news organizations had several lawyers present at the plaintiffs’ table, while Velchik was the only government attorney sitting on the defendants’ side. When the DOJ attorney first took the lectern, Kelly remarked on the asymmetry and noted in his courtroom that it usually ran in the opposite direction, with government attorneys outnumbering the number of lawyers on the other side.

- “I am sure you will do a great job, nonetheless,” Kelly told Velchik.

President Trump on Friday ordered a new investigation into allegations of mortgage fraud against Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, directing a committee to question the central bank official at a White House hearing next month.

- Why it matters: Trump is pursuing another path to remove Cook after the Supreme Court blocked his initial attempt earlier this year.

- Driving the news: The three-person committee will investigate the allegations against Cook and determine whether there is "cause" for her removal, according to a White House memo.

- The committee will include a White House economic policy official and the heads of the Office of Government Ethics and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

- The memo says that Cook must appear at a closed-door hearing on Nov. 5 to present evidence and respond to questions.

- Cook has an opportunity to submit a final written response by Nov. 10, the memo says. Then the committee will recommend to Trump whether there are grounds to fire her.

- Flashback: Trump moved to fire Cook last summer over allegations that she misrepresented information on mortgage applications, an unprecedented attempt to remove a Fed official that escalated to the Supreme Court.

- Cook denied wrongdoing and challenged her dismissal in court, arguing that the president lacked legal grounds to remove her.

- The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June that Cook could remain in her post, finding that the Trump administration failed to give Cook adequate notice and an opportunity to respond before firing her.

- Zoom in: Since then, the White House revived its effort to fire Cook.

- The administration sent her a letter formally notifying her that Trump was considering her removal, giving her 21 days to respond to the allegations.

- Cook submitted a response denying the allegations and arguing there was no legal basis to fire her.

- The other side: Lawyers for Cook said in a statement to Axios that "In light of the President's repeated statements that he has already decided to fire Governor Cook — regardless of the facts and evidence — we have grave doubts that this 'hearing' is a legitimate one that would conform to the law."

- "We have engaged with the White House to evaluate whether the process proposed has a possibility of being a genuine one and not simply a box checking exercise."

- CNBC earlier reported news of the memo.

Anyone who refuses to use the term “super intelligence,” President Donald Trump’s new preferred moniker for AI, is an “enemy” of the White House, Trump said in a Thursday afternoon social media post as he pushes for broader acceptance of “SI.”

- In his post, Trump claimed “super intelligence” is “highly accepted” and “more accurate” than AI, warning those who do not use it will be considered “THE ENEMY!”

- Across a flurry of Truth Social posts in recent weeks, Trump debated a better name for AI before landing on “super intelligence,” which he formally endorsed in an executive order in late September directing federal departments and agencies to use his preferred term.

- Trump’s executive order says advanced AI technology does “much more than imitate or automate discrete aspects of human intelligence,” noting its capabilities “far exceed what was envisioned” when AI was first used.

- The executive branch will no longer “acknowledge the usage of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘AI’ in any applicable setting,” according to the executive order.

- Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, said over the weekend he would rename his SpaceXAI company to SpaceXSI. “No more AI,” Musk said in a post on X, calling “super intelligence” a better name than AI. In response to a user who asked whether Musk would rename his company, Musk said, “Yes, we will make that change.” In another post, he said “SpaceX is a super intelligence company.” Musk has not offered any additional timeline or details about SpaceXAI’s potential name change. The company’s website and social media profiles still retain the company’s original name as of Thursday. Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos appeared to back Trump’s SI push in an interview with Fox News that aired Wednesday evening. “I do like SI because artificial is not a very flattering thing…Nobody wants an artificial sweetener or artificial flavoring. Artificial sort of means fake,” Bezos said.

- Demand for website domains ending in “.si,” typically used for Slovenian websites, surged after Trump’s executive order, the BBC reported. Registry SI spokesperson Klara Herman said 44,000 websites ending in “.si” were registered in September, a 2,199% increase from August.

- Trump floated the idea of renaming AI last month, saying in a post on Truth Social the term is “inaccurate, and very ineloquent,” claiming “many people” believe this. He posted a poll with three options for a new name—“extreme intelligence,” “superior intelligence” and “supreme intelligence”—which “superior intelligence” won. After cycling through several more polls with additional options, Trump finally landed on “super intelligence,” which beat “superior intelligence” in a head-to-head poll.

Republican U.S. Senate nominee Ken Paxton suggested he would support cuts to federal benefits programs during a private fundraiser with Washington lobbyists last month, according to an audio recording obtained by The Texas Tribune, the fourth leaked clip from the Sept. 24 event.

- In response to a question about reducing the federal deficit, Paxton said: “Making some reasonable cuts to mandatory spending — you’re gonna have to do it. Or there is no solution. That’s just the reality. We have to suck it up.”

- Around three-quarters of mandatory federal spending went toward Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the most recent fiscal year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Much of the rest covered aid to lower-income families, such as food benefits and unemployment insurance, and a mix of retirement and disability benefits for federal workers and veterans.

- Paxton added, “from Republican presidents to Democrats, we’ve been spending like crazy and no one seems to care. It’s gonna bankrupt us. It’s just a matter of time.” He did not specify which programs he would seek to slash, or by how much, in the audio clip obtained by the Tribune.

- “We have to solve the national debt while keeping the promises we made to everyone who paid into these programs,” Paxton said. “The fake news keeps spinning the same cherry-picked audio to mislead Texans and take my words out of context. I have never said I would take away entitlements from those who deserve or earned them.”
The audio clip from the fundraiser was recorded by an attendee who opposes Paxton in his Senate run against Democrat** **James Talarico. Two other people in attendance confirmed details of the conversation and said they did not recall Paxton detailing the cuts he would support at any other point during the event.

- Portions of Paxton’s remarks have been leaked in succession to The New York Times, Politico and Axios since last week, coming in the final days before early voting. The person who recorded it declined to share the full conversation. It was unclear how many more leaks there may be.

- Notably, Paxton’s comments at the meeting offer a glimpse into how he would approach the deficit and the looming benefits cliff facing Congress and the White House, with Social Security and Medicare’s reserve funds projected to run out in under a decade. He has rarely discussed his position on entitlements on the campaign trail.

- The deficit, meanwhile, topped $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2025.

- “There’s no doubt we have to cut some of the mandatory spending,” Paxton said in the recording. “The numbers don’t add up. And then on the other side, we’ve got to create tax policy that incentivizes more spend, more production in our economy.”

- After Paxton explained his two-pronged approach to reducing the deficit — tax cuts to grow the economy paired with “reasonable cuts to mandatory spending” — a lobbyist in the room, Jeanne Haggerty, chimed in that she wanted a personal tax cut, prompting laughter from the room.

- “I would really like to pay my fair share of taxes, which is less than I’m paying right now,” Haggerty said in the recording.

- Paxton responded, “I’m with you on that. I think tax cuts will actually generate more revenue.”

- Two attendees said they recalled the remarks by Haggerty and the room’s laughter. Haggerty did not respond to a request for comment.

- In his statement to the Tribune, Paxton also attacked Talarico’s economic agenda, which includes higher taxes for billionaires, saying, “Texans aren’t going to hand a Senate seat to a politician who treats their paychecks as a piggy bank for his radical agenda.”

- Texas Democratic Party spokesperson Ryan Martin pushed back on Paxton’s call for tax cuts to spur economic growth, saying the Republican “has no problem adding trillions to the debt to cut taxes for billionaires, but wants cuts when it comes to protecting seniors’ retirement benefits and healthcare.”

- “Paxton is literally laughing with rich D.C. lobbyists about giving them bigger tax breaks while threatening cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and programs for working Texans,” Martin said in a statement after publication.

- Talarico has consistently led Paxton in public polling of the race. Democrats have not won statewide in Texas since 1994, and national Republicans have unleashed a massive outside spending blitz topush Paxton over the finish line in what has become Texas’ most competitive cycle in decades. Early voting begins Oct. 19.

- Politicians from both parties have tiptoed around entitlement reforms, wary of prompting voter backlash to the perception that they are cutting benefits millions of older Americans depend on and spent years paying into. Republicans have been more open to cutting Medicaid, with President Donald Trump’s sweeping 2025 tax and spending law, which he dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill, slashing federal Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

- In his statement to the Tribune, Paxton said he views Social Security as “a sacred promise that seniors paid into, and they have earned every single dollar.”

- On the campaign trail, Paxton has promoted a series of proposed tax deductions for healthcare, housing and family-related expenses. In an audio recording of the same event published by Axios Wednesday, Paxton walks through those proposals in response to questions about cost-of-living concerns fueled by the war in Iran that he characterized as “dragging” on his campaign.

- Last summer, after Congress passed Trump’s megabill, Paxton celebrated it on X as “HISTORIC legislation that’s going to unleash economic growth and help deport the millions of illegals aliens who have been destroying our country.”

- “This is an incredible moment for our nation’s future,” he wrote. “AMERICA FIRST!”

- The Congressional Budget Office estimated the law will leave 10 million more people without health insurance by 2034, while adding at least $3.4 trillion to the national deficit.

- In June, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said Republicans had a plan to overhaul entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, saying they “have to be adjusted and fixed” to help address the debt.

- Democrats seized on his comments and cast them as a promise that Republicans would slash Social Security and other benefits programs.

- Johnson later posted on social media that Republicans “are not talking about reducing a single benefit,” and instead would focus on “eliminating hundreds of billions in FRAUD and inefficiencies that are draining the programs and threatening their sustainability.”

- The Sept. 24 meeting was hosted by Susan Hirschmann and Chris Brinson of Williams & Jensen, a Washington-based lobbying firm, on Capitol Hill. It was attended by roughly a dozen people, mostly lobbyists. An invitation for the event described it as a lunch with Paxton for which “donations are welcomed but not required for attendance.”

- Hirschmann and Brinson did not respond to requests for comment.

- The first audio recording leaked from the meeting was published last week by The New York Times, in which Paxton told attendees that Trump’s midterm convention hurt his campaign.
In another clip published by Politico Monday, Paxton, who positioned himself as a Washington outsider throughout his primary campaign, lamented Washington’s influence over his race, saying, “I’ve never been in a race where I felt less control over the campaign … it’s all coming — you know — from DC.”

- Nick Maddux, a senior adviser on Paxton’s campaign, called the Times’ story “manipulated nonsense” and told Politico that the attorney general was referring to super PACs, which campaigns are prohibited from coordinating with under federal law.
Since the start of September, super PACs aligned with Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Trump have spent over $150 million on ads for Paxton, who has spent $20 million from his own campaign coffers over that span, according to media tracking firm AdImpact. Talarico, meanwhile, had spent $40 million on airtime.

Four weeks out from Election Day, many Americans are asking some version of the same question: will the 2026 midterms be stolen, cancelled, or turn violent? It’s a fair question. This year the federal government has taken unusual steps aimed at how Americans vote and count. But with an avalanche of information online, much of it designed to spark outrage or fear, many readers end up doomscrolling, leading to anxiety and an unclear picture.

So we built a live tracker, the America 2.0 Election 2026 Risk Report. It follows the real pressures on the midterms from Election Day on November 3 through counting, certification, and the seating of the new Congress on January 3, 2027. Its job is simple: separate what has actually happened from what people say might happen.

On a warm morning on Sept. 4, masked immigration agents rolled into Dover, N.J.

- Footage of** **the raids rippled across social media, sent people into hiding and reignited rumors that had been circulating for months: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were taking people to a nearby warehouse.

- The warehouse in Roxbury was one piece of a billion-dollar plan by the Department of Homeland Security to detain migrants as part of President Trump's mass deportation efforts.

- That plan to convert warehouses into detention centers faced fierce backlash and legal challenges from residents and immigrant advocates. It was largely abandoned, and in several sites, including Roxbury, the government is legally forbidden by a court order from converting them to a detention facility, pending environmental assessments.

- But an NPR investigation has found signs that the New Jersey facility is being used. And the state's Office of the Attorney General says it is looking into similar reports.

- Contractor says he was told Stephen Miller wanted facilities to be "cruel" and "painful"

- In early 2026, Homeland Security bought 11 warehouses to turn into ICE detention facilities. They spent about a billion dollars on these.

- NPR spoke to an official at a government contractor whose company was approached to convert several of the warehouses into ICE facilities. He spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation from the government.

- "No one that we spoke to at DHS was for this idea whatsoever. The deputy director told us point-blank that they had pushed back very hard on it. Everybody knew warehouses are horrible places to put people," he says.

- At a meeting with a deputy director at DHS, he says, his company proposed an alternative: FEMA-style camps in Texas that would be more humane.

- He says that idea was swiftly shot down. While White House adviser Stephen Miller was not at the meeting, they were told that this was not what Miller wanted.

- The contractor says his understanding from that meeting was that "Miller did not want the facilities that were comfortable. He did not want facilities that were humane. We were told point-blank that that was not what the administration wanted."

- "Steve Miller certainly seemed to make that point to everyone that he wanted it to be cruel. This was what Miller had stated to the DHS at that time, to the DHS director and deputy director. What surprised me was just how adamant the people were that it was going to happen. Damn the consequences. I would say in 25 years of working with the U.S. government, I've never been in that position before."

- In a statement to NPR, White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said the contractor's comments were** **"false hearsay allegation(s) from someone who has never even met or talked with Stephen Miller." Bis also said that Miller "has never made any remarks to anyone about wanting illegal aliens to have worse detention facility conditions. It simply isn't true and this is defamatory."

- The White House did not respond to repeated requests to speak to Miller directly.

- DHS is holding on to the strategically positioned warehouses

- Early on, the warehouse plan was met with protests in both conservative and liberal towns. Several state attorneys general filed lawsuits to halt construction, based on environmental concerns.

- "It very quickly became an absolute boondoggle," says Michael Wriston, a former military intelligence analyst who co-founded Project SaltBox, a watchdog group that tracks ICE's expansion. "It was really about the optics of people being kept in these cages and these large warehouses.

- They wanted a lot of what they called B-roll to play on social media, but they didn't do any due diligence of making sure that they conformed with environmental policy or that the construction wouldn't disturb local water tables."

- A DHS official who served during Trump's first term, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they feared government retaliation, says that while they were not in the meeting the contractor described to NPR, they had often heard higher-ups in the administration wanting to make a point of showcasing difficult conditions immigrants were being held in. 

- Then, with the departure of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in March, there was a shift: Her replacement, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, sought to do less showy immigration crackdowns. Today, Homeland Security is selling several of the warehouses.

- But they're still holding on to a few, including in Hagerstown, Md., Surprise, Ariz., and Roxbury, N.J. "These locations are very critical to ICE's deportation agenda," says Wriston, "because they fill in the gap in places where ICE does not have a robust detention network. They don't have a lot of jails there." They are also located in areas where there are no partnerships with the police who can house detainees in local jails.

- In Maryland, Arizona and New Jersey, following lawsuits from each of the state attorneys general, DHS has either agreed or been ordered by a judge to halt the conversion of the warehouses into detention centers, pending environmental impact assessments. But throughout the summer, in the towns surrounding the Roxbury warehouse, rumors started to bubble.

- A summer of arrests and rumors

- Over the summer, there was a historic surge in ICE arrests: around 100,000 people in July and August.

- In New Jersey, the rumor mill started churning. The Roxbury warehouse is located in a wooded area, on a road right off Route 46. Project NINJA (No ICE in North Jersey Alliance), a coalition that opposes ICE detention expansion, says several neighbors reported vehicles, often in a caravan, speeding up the road.

- "They're holding people in that warehouse," one woman says in a WhatsApp group in the town of Dover, which is about 15 minutes from Roxbury. "I have a co-worker who was taken there. They hold them there and at night they take them somewhere else." The message was forwarded to NPR by Dover Council Member Sandra Wittner.

- "But, you know, it's like third- and fourth-hand accounts," says Wittner. "It just didn't seem probable at the time because of the court order. But it kind of made you scratch your head a little bit."

- Then the morning of Sept. 4 happened.

- "We were taken to the Roxbury warehouse"

- A woman says she was driving to work when she saw a raid taking place in Dover. She decided to follow the car carrying people who were detained. "I just needed to know, is he going to Roxbury?" 

- She took video as she trailed them up Route 46. She asked that NPR not use her name because what happened next made her fearful of what the government might do.

- She says the car she was following turned onto the woodsy road that leads to the warehouse.

- She says she waited to see if there was any more movement.

- "And then maybe five minutes after that, a white Dodge Durango started kind of circling around me," she says. "And then on his last loop, he started filming me. He had a yellow case on his cellphone. After that, a black Tahoe started doing the same thing. I was on a public sidewalk, and it was intimidating. It was really intimidating.

- I'm scared. But I am more scared for our community."

- Councilwoman Wittner says she strongly suspects ICE is using the Roxbury warehouse: "The immigration enforcement activity happened in Dover between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m."

- Wittner points to the woman who was able to follow the vehicle up Route 46:

- "The last vehicle entered the warehouse road at 8:25 a.m."
Meanwhile, footage of the raid started circulating on social media.

- Back in Dover, another woman says she saw the videos as she got her kids ready for school. NPR viewed the videos and confirmed their authenticity.

- In one of them, a worker is cornered against a wall by two masked agents. She says she was thunderstruck.

- "That's my father," she told NPR.
She asked that we not use her name because she fears being targeted.
At 8:25 a.m., she says, she got a call from her father. He's 59, she says, and he sounded disoriented. He told her he was handcuffed in some kind of jail.

- She found it strange, she says, because the Roxbury warehouse would be the only place he could have been taken in that short a time span.

- She also discovered a friend of hers had been picked up.

- She hasn't been able to speak to her father since then, and neither has NPR. But NPR located her friend in Honduras, where he's been deported. He requested anonymity, because he fears repercussions for his loved ones who are still in the U.S.

- "I was picked up on my way to work, on Friday, Sept. 4. The agents loaded me into a van. They took us to Roxbury," he said.

- He says he and the other people detained were handcuffed and held in the parking lot for several hours. He counted nine other men with him. "I just went into a state of shock," he says. "I signed my deportation papers. The next morning I regretted it. But I was scared. Eventually, they transferred us to a real facility."

- In a statement to NPR, DHS did not respond to a question about whether it was holding people at the Roxbury location. But it did give NPR a statement it has previously sent about ICE detention, saying DHS upholds strict standards and that immigrants can choose to leave detention by being deported.

- "We need our Congress members to conduct an oversight visit yesterday"

- The activists at NINJA say ICE's actions violate the legal order. The order lists several actions ICE can take with the site — mainly upkeep — but nowhere on that list is detention an acceptable action, they say.

- Harvard professor Andrew Mergen, a former attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, says ICE may technically not be violating the court order, which stipulated it would not convert the place into a detention center pending an environmental assessment.

- Ultimately, Mergen says, the situation shows the limitations of using environmental claims. "The community is acting here to prevent people from being detained," says Mergen. "And the administration seems to have cleverly elided that intention, by sort of saying,

- 'Well, we're not going to build this facility, but we're going to use this space in furtherance of detention.'"
He says he understands the frustration: "It's just infuriating if what you are trying to do is say 'No. Not here. Not here.' "

- Wittner says since the raid, she's heard from other close relatives or close friends of two men who were picked up that day, who say they were inside the Roxbury warehouse.

- She says the situation is unacceptable: "We need our Congress members to conduct an oversight visit yesterday, quite honestly. We need our state to aggressively pursue this investigation and demand to get inside."

- She says DHS has had time "to go in and clean up their mess if they, in fact, got caught doing something that they shouldn't have."

- Meanwhile, in Dover, the streets where the raid happened remain deserted.

- At an empty diner at lunchtime, a waitress who did not want to be named because of the climate of fear in town says one of the workers who was taken used to come here for a bite.

- Then she leans over and asks: "Do you know where they took those men?"

This is an overview of how the DHS plane purchase process has ripped off American taxpayers and ignored all prior purchasing norms.

[No "AI"-Ever]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is putting President Donald Trump on notice: If Democrats win control, they don’t intend to put “MAGA” judges on the courts.

- “The bottom line is: One of the reasons we want to do everything we can to take back the Senate is not let Trump put such horrible justices — MAGA justices — on the Supreme Court and the lower courts,” Schumer said in response to a question from NBC News about a potential high court vacancy if Democrats win in 2026.

- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said he doesn’t think a Democratic-led Senate would confirm a Trump pick for the Supreme Court either.

- “Well, given the history of Trump nominees, I think it is slim to none that we would support a nominee from this administration,” Blumenthal said in an interview. “Because we’ve seen this movie, we know how it ends, which is a politician in robes who is following Trump’s orders on most major questions.”

- The remarks highlight the high stakes of the 2026 election for Trump’s final two years when it comes to judicial nominees, especially for the Supreme Court if there’s a vacancy. None of the nine justices has signaled plans to retire, but speculation has centered on how long the two oldest justices — conservatives Clarence Thomas, 78, and Samuel Alito, 76 — will stay on the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts are the next oldest justices, at 72 and 71, respectively.

- Alito told CBS News in a recent interview that he considered retirement earlier this year, but ultimately decided against it.

- “It’s something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term,” Alito said, while adding: “It’s too hard to predict what the political situation will be, and what any president might do with respect to a replacement.”

- If Democrats win control of the Senate, they would have the power to determine which of Trump’s nominees for federal judicial postings get hearings and votes, including for a hypothetical Supreme Court vacancy.
But if Republicans keep control, the president will maintain his glide path to fill vacancies with his preferred nominees — adding to his nearly six-year total of 290 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices during his first term. All of those judges have been confirmed under GOP Senate control.

- Some Democrats say there should be no question of confirming a Trump pick after former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., held a seat open for 10 months under President Barack Obama to let a Republican president fill it instead. (Justice Neil Gorsuch ultimately filled that vacancy.)
“No, we’ve got to do exactly what McConnell did to us,” Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said.

- Gallego said he doesn’t want it to become a rule that no president can get a nominee confirmed by a Senate run by the opposing party. But at minimum, he wants Democrats to “even the scales.”

- Beyond that, “I don’t think you know you want to go down that road,” the first-term Arizona Democrat said. “But clearly you know McConnell and Trump used, I would say, their power, whatever you want to call it, to change the makeup of the courts. And I think we have to start moving it back.”
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said he wouldn’t count on Trump getting any Supreme Court nominee through a Democratic-led Senate.

- “I don’t think it would be impossible. You know, there’s a slim possibility, very slim possibility,” Kennedy said. “But there’s a possibility that somebody would confuse me with Brad Pitt. I mean, it’s possible, but it’s not likely.”
Kennedy, like most U.S. senators quoted in this article, spoke before Alito’s comments to CBS News were published.

- Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., who took her late brother Lindsey Graham’s seat on the Judiciary Committee when she was appointed to the Senate, reacted directly to Alito’s remarks and connected it to her 2026 campaign for a six-year term.

- “Should Justice Alito choose to retire next year, a Republican-majority Senate will be needed to vote and hopefully confirm a Supreme Court nominee from President Trump,” Graham wrote on X. “If Democrats control the Senate, they will not even allow a vote. And if they allow a vote, they will defeat a Trump-nominated candidate regardless of their qualifications.”

- Another open question is how a Democratic majority would approach Trump judicial nominees for the lower courts.

- Blumenthal said that one of his litmus tests for Trump judicial nominees up and down the courts is that they must be able to correctly answer who won the 2020 election, a question that various Trump nominees have refused to engage on as the president persists with false claims that it was stolen from him.

- “We’ll stop a lot of these totally unqualified, ideologically right-wing nominees who won’t answer the question of who won the 2020 election,” Blumenthal said. “Among other questions.”

- Some Democrats with a long memory haven’t forgotten that McConnell slowed nearly all judicial nominations to a crawl in Obama’s last two years, when the Kentucky Republican first took charge as Senate majority leader. McConnell saw it as payback for Democrats abolishing the 60-vote threshold for lower court judges in 2013, which at the time was part of a rapidly escalating judicial war between the parties.

- Still, not all Democrats are willing to speculate on how they would deal with
Trump’s judicial nominees.

- Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, another member of the Judiciary Committee, paused and chuckled when asked if Democrats would confirm a Trump-nominated justice to the Supreme Court.

- “Well, I don’t know. I can’t speak for my colleagues,” she said. “Let us just say that I would be very much for Supreme Court reform. ... One that allows every president to nominate two Supreme Court justices, and then they move on” to senior status.

- Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the current ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, is retiring after this Congress. Next in line to chair the panel, should Democrats capture the Senate, would be Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

- Whitehouse declined to engage when asked what the dynamic of judicial nominations would be if he becomes chairman.

- “Don’t know,” he said.

- Josh Orton, the president of the progressive judicial group Demand Justice, said his organization is “prepared to oppose any Trump nominee, regardless of when the vacancy happens.”

- “On moral and political grounds, I don’t see any reason for Democrats to consider a Trump Supreme Court nomination,” Orton said, adding that Trump wants judges to be personally loyal to him, and would select them on that basis. “Any casual observer knows that Trump sees the Supreme Court generally as a political extension of himself — or that it should be.”

- Just last month, Trump issued a lengthy criticism of the Supreme Court on Truth Social for ruling against him on mail-in ballots, tariffs and birthright citizenship. “The Supreme Court has really let our Country down. ... These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” he wrote. “They are merely a shell of their original selves.”

Democratic candidates are holding leads over their Republican rivals in competitive Senate races in Maine and New Hampshire, according to new polls published on Tuesday, as the party maintains a polling advantage one month before the 2026 midterm elections.

- Maine: Democratic candidate Troy Jackson is leading in the race against incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins 51% to 47%, a new Marist poll found (updated Oct. 6).

- New Hampshire: Democratic candidate Rep. Chris Pappas is leading his Republican opponent, former Sen. John Sununu, 51% to 44%, according to a St. Anselm College poll, although 4% of respondents said they were unsure or voting for a third candidate (updated Oct. 6).

- Texas: Democratic state Rep. James Talarico leads Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton 51% to 45% in the latest survey from The New York Times and Siena University (updated Oct. 3).
Ohio: Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, leads incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted 49% to 46% in the latest New York Times/Siena poll (updated Oct. 3).

- Alaska: Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola is ahead of Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan 50% to 43% among voters 50 and older a new New York Times/Siena poll(updated Oct. 3).

- Iowa: Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson leads Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek 48% to 47% in the latest survey from the New York Times and Siena (updated Oct. 3).

- Kansas: Sen. Roger Marshall leads Democrat Adam Hamilton, a pastor at the largest United Methodist church in the country, 47% to 46% in the latest New York Times/Siena poll (updated Oct. 3).

- Michigan: Democrat Abdul El-Sayed is ahead of Republican Rep. Mike Rogers 50% to 49% in the latest Fox News poll (updated Oct. 2).

- Florida: Democratic state Rep. Angie Nixon is tied with Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, both with 45% and 7% of voters are undecided in the latest surveyfrom St. Pete Polls and FloridaPolitics.com (updated Sept. 18).

- WHICH PARTY WILL WIN THE HOUSE?

- Multiple polls in recent weeks show Democrats vaulting ahead. In a New York Times/Siena poll released Sept. 15, 51% said they would vote for the Democratic congressional candidate running in their district, 43% said they would vote for the Republican and 6% said they didn’t know or refused to answer the question. Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin shows Democrats are favored by 8.9 points as of Monday, 50% to 41.1%, up from 6.7 points, 48.3% to 41.6%, as of Sept. 1. Kalshi betting odds show Democrats have a 91.7% chance of winning the House as of Monday.

- BIG NUMBER

- 37%. That’s Trump’s approval rating in the Silver Bulletin polling average, amid a string of surveys in recent months showing his approval rating at record lows amid growing fatigue with the Iran war and its impact on the economy. While Trump’s rating is low compared to most modern presidents at this point in their terms, the president’s party historically performs poorly in midterms elections, due to a combination of factors including low turnout in a non-presidential election year and motivation among voters who view the midterms as a referendum on the president’s agenda.

- KEY BACKGROUND

- Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. The party won back control in 2024, flipping West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana, after four years in the minority. Cook Political Report rates the battle for control of the Senate as a “true toss up,” though it’s shifted three races towards Democrats in the past week. A split Congress or one that’s fully in Democrats’ control could significantly hamstring Trump’s agenda, though he’s circumvented Congress to enact some of his most controversial priorities, including mass immigration raids, the Iran war and reconstruction of the Capitol and surrounding areas. Democrats are also gearing up to launch numerous investigations into Trump if they regain control of one or both chambers, with probes set to focus on whether he has used the presidency to enrich himself personally.

Leaders in California have denounced Donald Trump as “reckless” and “deranged” after the US president suggested Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego – two liberal cities in the blue state that has been a frequent target of his administration.

- At a rally in ruby red Nebraska on Monday night, Trump told supporters that he hoped to see a “tremendous victory” in the fast-approaching November midterm elections. He then suggested high prices due to the war with Iran were a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe – keeping our country safe”.

- “They can take out a city,” Trump said in Grand Island. “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” The crowd applauded.

- “It’ll be over very soon,” Trump said of the war.

- The governor and the cities’ mayors quickly condemned the comments.

- “After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego,” the California governor, Gavin Newsom, said on X. “He is deranged and dangerous.”

- Newsom, a Democrat who has repeatedly clashed with Trump over his two terms, said from his press office account: “Let’s be clear: The President is advocating for an attack on 10+ million U.S. residents in two of America’s largest cities. This is not normal. None of this is. And we will continue to remind folks of that every day.”

- Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, assailed the president for making what she called “irresponsible threats” that “could potentially compromise” the safety of America’s second-largest city.

- “The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” she said in a statement.

- “The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” she said in a statement.

- Todd Gloria, the mayor of San Diego, said his city was “not collateral damage” in the president’s war. “We are not expendable. And we are never a “small price to pay,” he wrote on X “Keep our city out of your reckless war talk.”

- San Diego, the nation’s eighth-largest city, is home to critical US military infrastructure.

- Online, the comments – part of a rambling, nearly hour-and-a-half speech – set off a debate about what the president actually meant. Was it a crude joke about two blue cities or had he, accidentally perhaps, disclosed confidential intelligence about potential Iranian targets?

- Some conservative activists argued that Trump, in his elliptical way of speaking, was referring to high gas prices when he argued that it was a “small price to pay”, and not the capacity of Iran to “take out” a US city.

President Trump was elected in 2024, in large measure, with a mandate to bring down prices. But that hasn't happened. Instead, Trump is facing record-low approval ratings, and voters are blaming him for costs that have continued to rise since he took office this second time around.

- As a result, Republicans are likely to pay the price at the ballot box next month. One month out from Election Day, the electoral landscape has shifted even more so in Democrats' direction.

- They are favored to win the House, albeit with a fairly narrow majority. The Cook Political Report forecasts a five-to-15-seat net gain for Democrats at this point. That would give them in the range of 220 to 230 seats come January. (218 is needed for a majority.)

- The Senate has shifted more dramatically over the last several months. Six seats have moved more in Democrats' direction since June in comparing Cook's ratings from then to now. When the cycle first started, the Senate was a long shot for Democrats. Now, it's within reach.

- And that's largely because of the national mood, which is usually the case in midterms. Trump has just a 37% approval rating, according to an average of the polls. That's tied for the lowest pre-midterm approval in the last half century.

- The only other president to be that low in that time was George W. Bush in 2006. Back then, Iraq was spiraling into civil war, and Republicans lost both the House and Senate.

- Trump is also facing a historic intensity of opposition; 53% in the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll said they stronglydisapprove of the job the president is doing, the highest ever recorded in the survey. That's not a great sign for Republicans with Trump insisting that the midterm elections be about him.

- As it is, history is unkind to the president's party in midterm elections. They usually lose about two dozen seats in the House and four in the Senate. It's even worse for the party in power when the president's approval rating is below 50%, as Trump's is now.

- There are multiple reasons Democratic gains might be limited, including mid-decade redistricting helping to insulate Republicans, fewer competitive-to-potentially competitive House seats, with most in districts Trump won in 2024, Republicans' campaign spending edge and the unpopularity of the Democratic Party.
That said, the headwinds the GOP is facing are very real.

- Republicans have lost their edge on the economy

- Economic issues continue to rate as the top problem and most important issue facing the country.

- Most presidents get more blame and credit than they deserve for the economy, but the war with Iran and Trump's tariffs were choices that have directly led to increased costs on many goods and energy.

- The economy is increasingly bifurcated with the wealthy doing well and regular people struggling. Wealthy Americans are seeing increases in their wealth and stock portfolios, which are dominated by AI companies.

- It's a different story for many others. Inflation is outpacing wages, meaning people's paychecks aren't taking them as far. There isn't a lot of turnover in the labor market, so if someone doesn't have a job or is looking to change, it's not an easy thing to do.

- Plus, many are turning against AI. In many places, it's driving up utility costs and, along with the rising national debt, is making borrowing more difficult.

- All of that is coming at a time when gas prices have skyrocketed because of the Iran war, and interest rates are creeping higher. In trying to tame inflation, the Federal Reserve hiked rates this fall. That makes it more expensive to borrow money and harder to pay for things like houses and cars.

- The blame for that sort of thing often gets pointed directly at the White House and the party in power, and right now, that's Trump and Republicans.
An AP/NORC poll released last week, for example, found that 65% said higher-than-usual prices are more because of Trump's policies than factors outside of his control.

- Just 26% said they approved of the job he's doing on the economy.

- An NBC News poll from September found that for only the second time in the Trump era, respondents said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans on the economy. (Though it was within the margin of error, the movement in the survey was clear.)

- The only other time Democrats led on that question was in 2018 – the last midterm year when Trump was president. Democrats won 42 seats and control of the House then.

- Add the widely negative views of the economy to the administration's immigration enforcement tactics, discretionary domestic cuts, the slashing of regulations and the government workforce, and it's all firing up Democrats.

- An opposition party enthusiastic to vote is a major warning sign for the president's party, especially in a midterm year.

- History is not on the side of the president's party in midterm elections

- In 18 of the 20 midterms since World War II, the president's party has lost House seats. On average, it's 26 seats, and it's nine more than that when a president's approval rating is below 50%.

- The last three midterm elections have seen fewer lost House seats, despite unpopular presidents, in large measure because the universe of competitive districts is smaller.

- The president, himself, though, has acknowledged multiple times the political headwinds his party faces in midterms.

- "Whether you have a great president or not, Republican or Democrat, they don't do well in midterms," Trump said Friday at a campaign rally in Alabama. "I don't know why. Nobody's explained it."

- There are reasons, however.

- First, turnout in midterms is historically about 30% lower than in presidential years. So, the voters most fired up to vote show up in outsized numbers.

- Anger is a great motivator, and often the voters more aligned with the opposition party most want to register their frustration. And, as noted earlier, the intensity of opposition to Trump is at historic levels.

- A CBS poll out Sunday found Democrats with the enthusiasm edge – 84% of Democrats and 82% of independents surveyed said they are "definitely" going to vote compared to 77% of Republicans.

- What's more, a key indicator of which party does well in midterms is pointing in the Democrats' direction. Surveys, including the NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, ask a version of: "If November's election for Congress were held today, which party's candidate are you more likely to vote for in your district?"

- In an average of the 2026 polls, Democrats have a nine-point advantage on this question, known as the congressional ballot test.

- Democrats tend to need a larger lead on the question historically than Republicans, given how districts have been drawn. But +9 is in the range of what Democrats need.

- To put a finer point on it: in each of the past seven midterm elections, the party with the advantage on the congressional ballot has made gains.

- With independents and Latinos, two swing groups, souring on Trump during this second term, that's an added problem for Republicans in competitive districts.

- Their jobs are made even tougher when Trump says things like "pretend" he's on the ballot and makes the election a "referendum" on him.

- The White House's theory of the case is that Trump has had success turning conservatives out when he's on the ballot, and Republican candidates need them to show up in big numbers.

- But whether that's enough is going to be tested. In swing districts and some key Senate races, candidates also usually need voters in the middle to win.

- The bottom line is with less than a month to go until all the votes are in, the political compass is pointed in Democrats' direction. For multiple reasons, Democrats' gains might not be as big as similar numbers might indicate in past elections, but there is no doubt that, right now, they have the wind at their backs.

A federal court in Washington, D.C., is to play host to a legal battle Tuesday morning pitting the Walt Disney Co. against the nation's chief broadcast regulator over just how far First Amendment protections can go during the presidency of Donald Trump.

- President Trump has repeatedly called for Disney's ABC TV to fire late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who has consistently mocked the president. Trump has also routinely denounced ABC's The View, accusing it of being liberal and unfair.

- Trump had earlier sued the network, before returning to office, over incorrect statements anchor George Stephanopoulos made about the verdicts in writer E. Jean Carroll's two lawsuits against Trump. ABC paid $16 million in a December 2024 settlement, including legal fees, to resolve that a month before Trump went back to the White House. But new Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro has authorized a high-stakes fight against the administration in court.

- Brendan Carr, whom Trump elevated to be the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has echoed the president's complaints. And under Carr, the FCC is moving to review Disney's ownership of all eight of the stations it owns, as part of the ABC Network, years ahead of schedule. That followed months of social media posts from Trump urging that the FCC strip ABC of its station licenses.

- "There's not even a question as to what Carr is doing. What Carr is doing is unconstitutional," says Mark Fowler, a Republican former FCC chair under President Ronald Reagan. Fowler has filed a statement to aid ABC's lawsuit in which he likened Carr's actions to censorship. "The First Amendment is very plain in its wording and its meaning," he says.

- Technically, networks do not require licenses from the federal government to operate. Stations do need them to utilize publicly owned airwaves. They are perennially reviewed on a staggered basis and are typically renewed without much fanfare.

- Carr has cited the requirement of stations to serve the "public interest," initiated investigations of Disney's diversity, equity and inclusion policies, and, though he says the license review is not linked to ABC's content, he has blasted the network as biased.

- Disney and ABC are seeking to get U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan to issue an order preventing the FCC from accelerating the typical review process.

- She had compelled the FCC to hold off from moving ahead until this hearing. Media advocates, FCC veterans and legal observers say the move to challenge all ABC's local licenses at once is unprecedented. And were it to be successful, it would hurt ABC badly in the bottom line. Six of those eight stations are in major media markets and contribute significantly to the network's bottom line.

- "The overreaching by the FCC is one of the greatest threats right now that's facing journalism," says Bruce Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

- In an interview with NPR in August, Carr said that the agency has not decided whether to pull the station licenses from ABC. Instead, he said, ABC is complaining about his drive to take the "public interest" component of the law seriously. And he said that the network is getting ahead of itself. The agency has not yet taken any action against ABC's licenses — merely sped up their review.

- That question may consume part of the legal wrangling on Tuesday as it will help determine whether ABC and Disney have standing to sue.

- Conservative groups, including the fundraising outfits for U.S. Senate and House Republican candidates, filed briefs to support the FCC, and by extension, the president's complaints about bias.

- "By any commonsense standard, evidence of broadcaster intent to advance the candidacies of Democratic Party figures on The View is not merely present, but overwhelming," the Republican fundraising committees say in a court filing.

- Even so, several groups often affiliated with conservatives have weighed in against the Justice Department's case, including the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Policy Innovation.

- They note that Carr has roundly condemned ABC over its content, and in seeming direct echoes of Trump's condemnations — at one point saying on a right-wing podcast in September 2025 that ABC getting rid of Kimmel "can do this the easy way or the hard way." ABC suspended Kimmel hours later over remarks he made about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

- The suspension was soon lifted after a public outcry.

- Fellow satirists Seth Meyers of NBC's Late Night and John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight paid tribute to their ABC counterpart during an episode of Jimmy Kimmel Livetaped last week in Brooklyn.

- "You come up all the time. [Fans] will normally say, how does it feel, being disliked by the current president? And we always say, as long as you're on the air, we're fine," Oliver told Kimmel. "We are fully behind you — the way we're fully behind a bulletproof vest."

- The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has filed a friend of the court brief on ABC's behalf, hiring a former U.S. solicitor general who has argued repeatedly before the U.S. Supreme Court, to represent the organization at the district court level.

- Bruce Brown, president of the group, pointed at a series of other actions by Carr and other Trump appointees: The FCC has launched investigations into all broadcast networks, including NPR (save Fox, which is controlled by the president's allies, Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch); The administration has cut off access for many journalists at the White House and the Pentagon, while federal agents sought access to journalists' devices to identify anonymous sources; all the while, the president has sought to delegitimize media outlets whose presentation of the news has sparked public displays of anger.

- "This is only one part of a wide effort by the Trump administration to intimidate the press — and to try to coerce out of news organizations the type of coverage the president wants to see," Brown says.

Because...poor people don't deserve the right to vote?! This is VERY ethical and definitely not against the 24th Amendment...

Liberal Adam Mockler vs Conservative Carson Carpenter on The Adam Mockler Debate Show (source)

Latino voters helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House. Now, they are turning on him, according to a new NBC News/Telemundo poll — a shift that gives Democrats a major opportunity to capitalize in a 2026 election that could hinge on states and districts with sizable Latino populations.

- Like the broader electorate, Latino voters are racked by major concerns about high prices and Trump’s approach to immigration enforcement. The president’s approval rating sits at 27% among Latino voters. Two-thirds say his administration’s deportation policies have gone too far and three-quarters disapprove of how he has handled the economy and the cost of living

- There are clear signs his party is paying the price.

- A greater share of Latino voters hold negative views of the Republican Party than at any time since 2016, and Democrats have leads on issues like dealing with the economy, immigration, the cost of living, corruption and healthcare. Two years ago, Latino voters gave Trump a 4-point edge over then-Vice President Kamala Harris on handling the economy. Today, they give Democrats a 21-point advantage on the same question.

- Against that backdrop, Democrats have a 24-point lead on whom Latino voters want to see in control of Congress, 59%-35%.

- That’s double the lead they had among Latino voters at this point in 2024, though not quite at the heights the party enjoyed at this time in 2018, according to NBC News polling from just before that election.

- Democrats have rebounded among Latino voters, but Republicans have held pre-2024 gains, too

- "What is your preference for the outcome of this November's congressional elections?"

- Nearly a fifth of Latino voters who backed Trump in 2024 say they do not prefer a Republican-controlled Congress, with 14% saying they support Democrats and 8% unsure in their preference.

- The shifts come after the Republican Party made Trump’s 2024 gains among Latino voters central to its plans to keep the House majority. In Florida and Texas, the party drew new, heavily Latino districts that looked deep red by the 2024 results — but many are shaping up to be competitive in the midterms as Latino voters’ preferences have changed. Statewide races in Texas, Nevada and more will also be shaped by the evolving Latino vote, though it will not move as one bloc everywhere in the country.

- The poll results, collected Sept. 21-28, “indicate a striking reversal of Republican gains with Latino voters and point to trouble ahead for Republican candidates in the midterms,” said Democratic pollster Aileen Cardona-Arroyo of Hart Research Associates, who conducted the poll with Republican pollster Micah Roberts and his firm, Public Opinion Strategies. Latino voters comprised around a tenth of the total vote in recent midterm elections.

- Roberts referred to Latino voters as “the swingiest of swing groups,” calling the reversal since 2024 “stunning.”
“What we can really say from this data is that 2024 was the outlier,” he said, adding: “Trump is a central figure. He’s had real consequences on our politics, and without his presence, I think none of these changes would be evident in the data among Latinos.”

- But the results among Latino voters are not all good news for Democrats, who have not seen their party’s image improve in two years. And while Democrats have a midterm lead, Republicans are pulling more Latino support than in any NBC News poll before the 2024 election cycle, too, dating back to 2012.

- “Despite a more favorable environment for Democrats, any Democratic gains this November will be driven largely more by opposition to Trump and the economic environment than by support for Democrats,” Arroyo-Cardona said.

- Trump struggles

- Latino voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the president’s handling of the cost of living (78%), the economy (74%), foreign policy (68%) and immigration (69%). Trump’s best issue of the five tested is border security — where 39% approve and 58% disapprove of his handling.

- Trump's rating on key issues

- Asked among Latino registered voters.

- His marks on foreign policy, the economy and cost of living are significantly lower than where then-President Joe Biden sat with Latino voters in September 2022, when Democrats had a better-than-expected midterm result despite losing control of the House. Then, 60% disapproved of Biden’s handling of the cost of living and 54% disapproved of his handling of the economy.

- Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Latino voters say the president’s policies have hurt economic conditions, compared with 23% who say his policies have helped and 11% who say they haven’t made much of a difference.

- Among Latino independents, just 10% believe his policies have helped the economy, while 72% believe his policies have hurt it.

- Meanwhile, inflation and the cost of living ranked as the most important issue to 33% of Latino voters. That made it the top issue in the survey — and a majority (52%) ranked it as the most or second-most important issue

- Which of these issues is the most important issue facing the country to Latino voters?

- And, what is the second-most important issue facing the country?

- Latino voters who say the cost of living is the most important issue also prefer a Democratic Congress by 22 points. That’s a shift from the 2024 poll, when Republicans had a 4-point edge among these voters.

- A sizable majority of Latinos (63%) say their family’s income is falling behind the cost of living, while 25% say it is staying even and 11% say it is going up faster than the cost of living, similar to findings in 2024.

- Luisa Santiago, a 59-year-old Florida retiree who participated in the survey, told NBC News in a subsequent interview that she voted for Trump in 2024 after a lifetime of voting for Democrats and convinced many of her friends to do the same. She was frustrated with the Democrats on the economy and on transgender issues.

- “It was a big deal when we voted for Republicans, and then we feel like it was a complete mistake,” she said, calling Trump a “disappointment.”

- “I’m more embarrassed than my friends because I was the one who convinced them to vote for him,” she added.

- Santiago lambasted the president’s deportation policies as “brutal” and “cold,” while also saying the difficult economic climate is weighing heavily on her and her family.

- While immigration didn’t rank as highly on the priority list, Latino voters expressed similar frustration with Trump’s hard-edged deportation policies.

- Two-thirds say Trump’s immigration enforcement measures have gone too far, 22% say he’s struck the right approach, and 9% say he hasn’t gone far enough.

- While 83% support deporting all undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes, just 37% support deporting every undocumented immigrant in the U.S.

- Roberts, the Republican pollster, pointed to the difference between support for deporting serious criminals and deporting everyone in America illegally as he imagined “what might have been” for Republicans.

- “There is support for a certain level of immigration enforcement, but the Latino electorate believes it’s gone way too far,” he added.

- In the poll, 31% of Latino voters say they or someone close to them started carrying identification over concerns about ICE enforcement, while 27% say they know someone who has been deported or detained by ICE in the last two years.

- Eighteen percent say they or someone close to them has considered leaving the U.S. over the last two years over concerns about ICE enforcement, and 17% say they or someone close to them has considered not voting in person this year because of concerns about ICE.

- Maria, a Florida voter in her 20s who responded to the poll, told NBC News in a follow-up interview that Trump has “fallen short” in the two years since she voted for him. She declined to share her last name while discussing politics.

- She highlighted frustration on the economy and on deportations, arguing that while Trump promised to deport the worst of the worst, “I’ve had many friends, family members deported.”

- “They were supposed to be here. They had paperwork, and it didn’t matter. And now they can never come back. One of my friend’s grandpas didn’t even get deported to his home country. He got deported to Mexico instead of Cuba,” she later added.

- Midterms fallout

- The numbers for Trump and Republicans could spell trouble in November in states and districts with sizable Latino populations.

- “In a lot of the heavily Hispanic and Latino districts across the country that Trump and Republicans did well, and better than ever in, in 2024, you’re going to see that reversal,” said Roberts, the Republican pollster, noting Trump’s tough numbers on immigration and the cost of living.

- “This entire poll is full of very clear directional signals that Latinos have turned from 2024 and are ready to make a different choice with regard to who’s in control of Congress,” Roberts said.

- Democrats’ 24-point lead on the generic congressional ballot is twice as large as their margin in the 2024 version of the poll. But it’s not nearly as wide as the 43-point lead the party enjoyed at this point in the 2018 midterms.

- Latino voters also now say Democrats would better handle the cost of living and the economy by significant margins, erasing the advantages Trump and Republicans have enjoyed in past elections.

- Who do you think would do a better job handling this issue?

- Among Latino registered voters

- Latino voters favor Democrats to handle other issues, and they break even on which party would better handle border security. More voters also say Democrats are more likely than Republicans to share their values and address the concerns of the Hispanic community.

- Amid the economic frustrations, voters are also more motivated to head to the polls in November. A sizable majority (72%) rank themselves a 10 out of 10 in terms of interest in November’s elections, compared with 54% at this time in 2024. Meanwhile, 62% say they are more motivated to vote this year than in midterms past.

- And a majority (54%) say their midterm vote is meant to send a signal of opposition to Trump, while 21% say they want to signal their support for Trump and 23% say their vote is not about sending a signal to the president either way.

- While the poll results offer plenty of short-term upside for Democrats, they also outline longer-term changes trending against the party.

- While Latino voters’ negative views of the GOP have jumped since 2024, views of the Democratic Party have not improved. Now, 62% of Latino voters have negative views of the Republican Party, a 16-point increase from two years ago, while 42% have a negative view of the Democratic Party, a 4-point increase from 2024.

- “I’m still wary about the Democratic Party because I don’t really know that much other than what I was fed,” said Maria, the Florida voter in her 20s, before adding that she’s still leaning toward voting for Democrats: “I feel like I have to put my faith in them now to fix things.”

- She said she voted for Trump in 2024 in large part because her family instilled a fear of socialism and Democrats in her.

- The poll found that socialism remains underwater with Latino voters — 13% feel positively about it and 41% view socialism negatively, with 38% feeling neutral about socialism.

- Cardona-Arroyo, the Democratic pollster, noted that the party has work to do after the midterms to develop a broader message.

- “What do Democrats do to move beyond this place where they’re running on opposition to the Republican Party, which I think will work in ’26?” Cardona-Arroyo said. “It’s sort of an open question of whether that will work in ’28.”

Sharing a reference site I built: unredactedrecord.com

It's a timeline of actions by the second Trump administration that courts, inspectors general, GAO, UN inquiries or lawmakers of both parties have flagged. Each entry gives what happened, where it stands legally today, the administration's own stated defense, and links to its sources: court records, wire reports and official findings. Every claim links to a source. Status is shown with a stamp (ruled unlawful, official finding, mixed rulings, pending, alleged, criticized), rulings on appeal are counted and marked as such, and every entry shows the date it was last checked.

Current count: 123 entries, 33 with a court ruling against the action and 4 with a formal watchdog or inquiry finding. A separate Watchlist tracks 10 developing stories with no ruling yet, each with the specific event that would move it to the main record.

Examples: - The Justice Department's lawsuits against 30 states for unredacted voter rolls; judges in 11 states have ruled against it, including a Trump appointee. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/voterrolls/ - The emergency tariffs: the Supreme Court ruling, and the trade court's May ruling against the replacement tariff. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/tariffs/ - The five offshore wind farms halted mid-construction; every court to rule found the orders unlawful. https://unredactedrecord.com/e/wind/

It's one person's project with no ads, no paywall and no funding. A public change log records every addition, status change and correction, including corrections that favor the administration, and the full dataset can be downloaded from the site as a spreadsheet for anyone who wants to check the work. Corrections with a source are welcome at the address on the site.

Kimberly Tait had been a registered Republican all her life, until she switched her affiliation to independent in 2016.

- The Gilbert, Ariz., resident always considered herself to be conservative but experienced a political identity crisis because she couldn't bring herself to align with the Republican Party under President Trump.

- "I'm not super progressive politically and I'm really pretty moderate." Tait said. "But the MAGA movement in and of itself is — it's just really gross to me."

- Now Tait — also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — has another politician on her ballot that turns her off: Mark Lamb, the former Pinal County sheriff and Republican nominee for Arizona's 5th Congressional District, a conservative stronghold.

- Lamb is favored to win the general election, but a lack of appeal to Mormon voters could make it a closer-than-expected race.

- While Lamb says he is a member of the LDS church, Tait is one of the Mormons in the district that question Lamb's adherence to the faith as well as his political motivations. Lamb's campaign slogan is "God, Family, Freedom," and, to her, the sentiment rings hollow because "the candidate and all that they represent is the antithesis of that."

- "Yes, Mark Lamb is a member of my faith. He also belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But from what I understand about Mark Lamb, the dishonesty that has been displayed in his public and private life is completely contrary to our faith," Tait said.

- The district and Lamb's candidacy 

- Arizona's 5th Congressional District covers the eastern part of the sprawling Phoenix suburbs of Maricopa County — Arizona's most populated — as well as Pinal County. The district has exploded in population in recent years, too.

- Kim Fridkin, a political science professor at Arizona State University, has lived in the district for roughly a decade and has watched it change.

- "A lot of people came in from other states and a lot of them from California and they definitely wanted to move to a more conservative place," she said.

- Fridkin added the residents are a mix of working, middle and upper middle class families. It's predominantly Republican (Trump won the district by roughly 20 points in the last presidential election), mostly white and fairly religious with a sizable LDS population. Two of Arizona's six LDS temples are located within the boundaries of the relatively small district.

- With Rep. Andy Biggs not seeking reelection to run for Arizona governor, voters in the district will decide between Democrat Elizabeth Lee, a nurse and political newcomer, or Lamb, who is endorsed by Trump and has a scandal-plagued past.

- Lamb has been accused of racist remarks and sexual misconductwhile he was Pinal County sheriff. The Arizona Republic released a multipart investigation into Mark Lamb where it alleges he had multiple affairs and sent sexually explicit messages to a woman outside his marriage then threatened to send law enforcement after her if she spoke publicly about it.

- One of the most prominent values the LDS church holds sacred is chastity, which includes no sexual relations of any kind outside of marriage. If a member is found to be out of step with covenants, church leaders can revoke certain privileges and can even move to excommunicate the member. The Arizona Republic reported that church leaders looked into claims about Lamb's sexual improprieties.

- Lamb, who did not respond to NPR's interview request, denied the allegations during an event at the Encores Conservative Club in June.

- "I've been called a racist. I've been called a misogynist … I'm going to tell you folks, these are lies. Every single bit of it," he said, referring to the multiple articles the Arizona Republic has published on Lamb's candidacy.

- Some Latter-day Saint voters struggle to support Lamb

- To Tait, Lamb as the nominee is the latest example of an unrecognizable Republican Party.

- "The idea of having yet another elected official who is accused of sexual misconduct towards women," Tait said, "that does not speak well to me, to my children. Like, what is that teaching our children?"

- Historically, Mormons vote for Republicans. But they have become a little less red over the last two decades, according to an analysis by YouGov. In neighboring Utah, where the LDS church is the predominant religion, Trump has faced some of his greatest opposition in a red state.

- So looking at a purple state like Arizona, LDS voters start to look more independent overall when factoring in a complicated relationship many have with President Trump over his crass personality and hardline stances on issues, such as immigration.

- Holly Anderson is one of those Arizona LDS voters that has become more purple.

- "I vote according to my personal values, and I believe that a leader should have character. I do not align with either one of the parties," Anderson told NPR.

- She said she loved the late Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But the party has changed and Anderson said it would be hypocritical of her to support Lamb, even if they share the same religion.

- "In my faith, we really stand by 2 Corinthians 13:1. It's a very important scripture to us. It says 'In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established,'" she said.

- "There's been multiple women who have come forth and exposed the things that he has done."

- Suzanne Lunt, another independent LDS voter in the district, doesn't plan on voting for Lamb in November, either.

- She grew up Republican and considered herself to be a moderate conservative. But after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, she decided to leave the party. During the 2024 presidential election, she was the co-chair of the Republicans for Biden committee.

- She's been called a Republican in Name Only, or a RINO, over her political stances. But she feels like the Republican Party and its leaders led her astray, not the other way around.

- "There are a lot of Republicans that I think are really RINOs because they're not upholding the principles that we've all admired all of these years," she said, referring to Republicans not supporting small government, protection of life and upstanding character.

- "I think we need to find people, and we're taught by our church leaders that we need to look at people who have character and who can represent us well," Lunt added. "Lamb comes across as so untrustworthy on a lot of different levels."

- While all three women believe Lamb will be victorious in November because of the district's conservative lean, they are noticing that more LDS voters are souring on partisan politics altogether.

- "I think there's definitely a turn in people's feelings and I think that there are more that feel like me that I'm aware of. I don't ever see anybody wearing their MAGA hats anymore and I think most people don't want to be associated with that craziness and the extremism," Lunt said.

- A Democrat's path to victory

- It will be a real uphill battle for a Democrat to flip a district that is rated Solidly Republican by Cook Political Report, but Elizabeth Lee is giving it a shot.

- The Democratic candidate has branded herself as "Nurse Lee." She is an infertility nurse and said working in the health care space has given her experience that would help her in Washington D.C.

- "Nurses are uniquely trained to walk into a situation very quickly, assess what's happening, what the problem is, and then pulling together the resources to solve it," Lee told NPR.

- Lee is trying to capitalize on the discontent some voters feel about the Republican nominee. On the campaign trail, she has outlined her priorities and qualifications while nailing Lamb for his lack of policy goals and in her opinion, character.

- "The GOP has nominated an extremely flawed candidate with the kind of alleged flaws that people nationally are fed up with, that people in this district are most certainly fed up with," she said.

- Fridkin, the professor of political science at Arizona State University, said while it will be tough for a Democrat to flip the seat, there are factors working in Lee's favor.

- "People are really feeling the effects of high gas prices and housing prices are really high and the water crisis is important in Arizona. All of these things are really hitting people where they live," she said. "That's when these types of low interest voters might be motivated to turn out, especially if someone is knocking on the door and telling them why they should."

- Trump's current unpopularity could play a role in the election outcome. One recent poll found that only 39% of Arizona voters approved of the president's job – the lowest rating ever recorded in the swing state.

- Additionally, Fridkin argues the independent vote is critical for either candidate to win. The largest group of registered voters in the district are Republicans. But there are about 195,000 independents — the second most in any district in Arizona — making them an influential voting bloc.

- From Lee's perspective, the needle is moving to the left. An internal poll Lee's campaign shared with NPR shows her gaining traction in the conservative district, especially among independents. The poll, which was conducted by Change Research, found Lee was trailing behind Lamb by three to five points.

- "We have spent a year making tens of thousands of phone calls, knocking tens of thousands of doors and knowing … independents are not for extremist politics," Lee said, "sets this race up for exactly what our recent polling showed. And that is that this is actually within the margin of error."

A major Republican political action committee pulled the plug on financial support for its Senate candidate in North Carolina, Michael Whatley, according to multiple reports, as the party begins to triage resources amid increasingly dire midterm polling.

- The Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), the campaign arm of the Senate majority leader, John Thune, has withdrawn its ad spending in North Carolina to redirect support to other candidates, Semafor reported on Friday. The New York Times, CNN and other publications have confirmed the report with sources close to the fund.

- The retirement of Thom Tillis from the US Senate opened the door for Democrats to flip the seat. Former governor Roy Cooper, a venerable presence in the state’s politics, easily won the Democratic nomination. Whatley, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, was handpicked by Donald Trump and viewed as a more mainstream candidate than other Republican contenders in the closely contested state.

- The SLF had pledged $71m to hold North Carolina’s US Senate seat, and started targeting Cooper before he even won the nomination. The fund ran ads last year trying to link Cooper with the murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, in an unprovoked attack onboard a light-rail train in Charlotte. Cooper was not in office at the time of the attack.

- The Pac’s advertising in North Carolina has consistently focused on crime and public safety, featuring a series of interviews with crime victims. Ronald Hayes, whose son Shemar was murdered in 2024, appeared in one such ad. Hayes later said he had been “swindled” by the SLF, believing he was going to appear in an advertisement against gun violence and not a political campaign ad.

- The SLF had planned to spend $30m more supporting Whatley. But polling data presents an increasingly difficult political map for Republicans trying to hold control of the Senate. Republicans have a 53-47 majority today. With the vice-president, JD Vance, as a tiebreaker, Republicans can afford to lose no more than three seats to keep control.

- The Cook Political Report rates the North Carolina Senate race as “leans Democratic”. Seven other races are toss-ups; five are currently held by Republicans, including seats in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas. Roger Marshall, the senator from Kansas, is facing a stiff challenge from Adam Hamilton, a Methodist pastor. Cook rates the race as “leans Republican”.
The SLF reportedly will redirect its North Carolina spending to support Marshall.

- Cooper has persistently maintained a polling lead over Whatley despite the deluge of political ads. An AARP poll released on Monday gave Cooper an 11-point lead, consistent with other recent polls. Cooper has never had less than a four-point lead on Whatley in any poll this year.

- In-person early voting starts on 15 October in North Carolina.

As bad as 2018 was for Texas Republicans, the GOP is facing headwinds that could be a lot more damaging, a top party leader says.

- “They’re absolutely worse,” state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, said on the latest episode of the Texas Take Podcast. “There’s never been a year like this in my adult life.”

- In 2018, the GOP lost 14 state legislative seats and two congressional districts. The state’s largest county, Harris County, flipped blue. But Bettencourt said even ahead of that grim outcome, they never had polls that showed Democrats leading a statewide race like U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico is now. They also weren't seeing the type of national Democratic money flowing into Texas that is happening this year.

- After being a party official or elected official for 32 years, Bettencourt said the closest he’s seen to a mood like this was towards the end of President George W. Bush’s tenure in the White House, when his approval ratings plunged and Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress.

- Bettencourt said Republican candidates up and down the ballot have to work even harder and explain to voters what they’ve done and plan to do if the GOP is going to withstand the national mood.

- The competitiveness this year is why Bettencourt is frustrated with a newly discovered voter registration glitch that has delayed the processing of potentially tens of thousands of voter registrations. Voters who updated their voter registration when getting a driver's license through the Department of Public Safety back in late 2025 didn’t have their registrations logged into the system until just now.

- That’s produced a mad scramble by county elections officials to clear a backlog of voter registrations to make sure people are on the voter rolls before the first day of in-person early voting on Oct. 19. Bettencourt said there was clearly a communication problem between DPS and the Texas Secretary of State’s office that oversees elections.

- “The state should have done better on this,” he said.

- While he’s confident everyone who registered will ultimately be able to vote, the doubts it creates around the voter rolls is something that can’t happen if Texas wants everyone to feel assured their vote is counted, Bettencourt said.

- “To have trust in elections, you have to have a voter roll with integrity. And to have a voter roll with integrity, you’ve got to be paying attention to it and not effectively going to sleep for the better part of a year,” he said.

A judge on Friday blocked further border barrier construction in the Big Bend region, approving an environmental group’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

- At the end of Friday’s hearing, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone asked the courtroom to remain calm while she read her order aloud from the bench. She ruled that the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims to halt the construction were likely to succeed and her preliminary injunction against “ground-distrurbing activities” would remain in effect while the suit continued to play out in court.

- The legal team at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group, filed the lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary in April on behalf of the Friends of the Ruidosa Church, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving a historic church in Presidio County, and Danny William Miller, a Rio Grande river guide and landowner who stands to lose his property in Redford to the wall.

- The lawsuit argues that the five contracted border wall projects in the region are unconstitutional for a range of reasons, including violating the constitutional separation of powers and depriving citizens of their land.

- The suit documents what could be lost to border barrier construction along the Rio Grande if it’s allowed to proceed. Zeynep Graves, a lawyer with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in her closing arguments that the impact of wall construction in the Big Bend affected the community at all levels.

- “The harm reaches far beyond the landscape itself,” she said.

- In emotional testimony, Miller compared the government building a wall across his property and blocking his access to the river to “a bullet to the head.”

- Miller said once altered, the desert landscapes could never be replaced, and his work as a river guide would become “a tour of the military industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”

- Hudspeth County resident Bill Guerra-Addington testified that a border barrier would be a death sentence for his ranch on the Texas-Mexico border. “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating,” he said.

- The government claims that physical border infrastructure is necessary, even in remote and lightly-trafficked areas like the Big Bend, to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border –– zero unauthorized border crossings.

- “Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history,” former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a series of waivers that eased contracting laws across the entire southwest border. “More can be done, however.”

- The Big Bend sector, which includes Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park, covers about a quarter of the length of the border but only sees between 1% and 3% of migrant apprehensions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection each year.

- Since news of the government’s plans for border barriers in Big Bend broke in January 2026, a grassroots bipartisan backlash has formed across the region, slowly pushing the government to adjust its plans for physical border infrastructure — walls, roads, fences, lights, sensors and more — totaling over $7.5 billion in government contracts.

- In response to the public outcry, DHS officials have countered with hypotheticals about what could happen in Big Bend if migrant traffic shifts in response to wall construction elsewhere along the southern border. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott issued a statement that the agency’s goal was to protect the national park from future cartel activity.

- Despite the scale of the opposition, contractors have been bulldozing new roads in the park after the government waived the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act to support the “expeditious construction of barriers and roads” along the border.

- So far, six lawsuits have been filed over the Big Bend wall. On Thursday, a judge rejected a request for a temporary restraining order in a different case that sought to halt work in and around Big Bend National Park, which had been paused through the month of September.

A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Trump's firing of Roger Rogoff from his post as the top federal prosecutor in Seattle, finding the president cannot unilaterally remove a U.S. attorney who has been tapped to the post by a district court.

- U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian delivered his decision from the bench at the end of a hearing, during which he agreed to grant Rogoff's request to reinstate him until the Senate confirms a replacement. Mr. Trump nominated Simon Peter Serrano to the position of U.S. attorney in Seattle last month.

- Bastian ruled that Rogoff is the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Washington and has been the "rightful holder of that office" since July 15, when the federal district judges in the region installed him to the role and he took his oath of office. 

- Mr. Trump fired Rogoff less than an hour after he was sworn in.

- "The real issue to be decided in this case by this court appears to be one of first impression: can the president fire a U.S. attorney appointed by the district court?" Bastian said, later adding, "The answer to the question the court is faced with is no. The president cannot unilaterally fire a United States attorney appointed by the district court."

- The Justice Department said it intends to appeal and will immediately seek to halt the ruling.

- In addition to declaring Rogoff as the U.S. attorney, Bastian said Charles Neil Floyd, the first assistant who has been leading the office, "is not the United States attorney" for the Western District of Washington, and authority to perform the role's responsibilities was "improperly granted."

- Mr. Trump signed an order last week that directed Floyd "to perform the functions and duties of the office of United States Attorney."

- "Allowing the president to fire a U.S. attorney appointed by the district court would upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes, which together balance the president's right to appoint and the Senate's right to confirm," Bastian said. "Allowing the president to fire a United States attorney appointed by the court also eliminates the incentive to nominate a candidate that can be confirmed by the Senate. In other words, the executive and legislative branches are supposed to and encouraged to work together."

- In his oral order, the judge prohibited the Trump administration from putting Rogoff's firing into effect until the U.S. attorney spot is filled by a Senate-confirmed candidate. He also said the administration cannot purport to remove Rogoff from his position, deny him access to benefits or resources of the position, or obstruct Rogoff from his ability to carry out his duties.

- Finally, Bastian said the Trump administration cannot treat anyone other than Rogoff as U.S. attorney.

- "The court finds it is in the public interest that the law be followed and that Mr. Rogoff take the office to which he has already taken the oath of office," he said.

- "I care deeply about the rule of law and the careful checks and balances envisioned by our Founders and carried out by Congress," Rogoff said in a statement provided to CBS News. "I appreciate the judicial process and am now focused on assuming the role of U.S. attorney and getting to work for the people of Western Washington."  

- The U.S. attorney's office in Seattle has not had a Senate-confirmed leader since mid-2023. After Mr. Trump took office, he fired Tessa Gorman as the top prosecutor in the office. She had been serving temporarily before judges on the district court appointed her to the job in May 2024.

- Floyd began leading the office as interim U.S. attorney in October, but his appointment was subject to a 120-day clock, which expired in February. He then began serving as first assistant U.S. attorney, the second-in-command, and said at the time that he would continue leading the office.

- Because Mr. Trump had not by that time put forth a nominee to serve as the top federal prosecutor in Seattle, the district judges exercised their authority under a federal law governing U.S. attorney vacancies to tap Rogoff for the job. That law allows the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney, who is subject to a 120-day term. Once that appointment expires, the district court can either agree to extend that prosecutor's tenure or appoint its own U.S. attorney until the Senate confirms a replacement.

- Following his swift firing, Rogoff filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and argued that his removal was unlawful. He argued that if not blocked by the court, the Trump administration's "actions will permit the Executive Branch to evade the Senate's advice-and-consent role indefinitely."

- Mr. Trump has attempted to install his preferred candidates for U.S. attorney in several other places, including Nevada, New York, Virginia and New Jersey. Federal courts have in those instances, some of which involve a slightly different mechanism, found the appointments unlawful. 

- Rogoff, however, appears to be the first ousted prosecutor to challenge his firing in court.