<....Many in the GOP share Tillis’ view that Collins is about the only Republican who can win a Senate seat in Maine, and she has gotten a wide berth to break with her party because of that. Trump hasn’t lashed out at Collins for opposing the megabill — unlike with Tillis and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

“Everybody cuts her a lot of slack,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on Tuesday night. “She represents … a very blue state. She has to run for reelection this year. She’s the only Republican that can win. And so, you know, she sees the world through a different lens, and she’s always very upfront about what she’s going to do.”

GOP colleagues, he added, “are encouraging her and urging her, doing everything we can to help her to make sure she runs. … She’s got a different calculus, probably than some do in our conference. But there is nobody in our conference who represents a state like hers.”

Democrats’ bet is that Collins concludes that spending another six years in a legislative body whose governing norms have eroded — and a party whose principles she is increasingly out of step with — simply isn’t worth it.

One fellow GOP senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Trump isn’t happy with Collins and might not keep quiet indefinitely.

“He’s very irritated at Susan — very, I can tell,” the GOP senator said of Trump. “But she doesn’t care, because the more Trump gets irritated with her, the better it is for her politics back home.”

Collins “is in an awkward spot” and “gets a pass on a lot of the things that she has to do,” the senator said. But nobody believes Collins’ happy talk about getting government funding back on track, the GOP lawmaker added.

Thune, for his part, said it is his “intention” to “see if there’s a path forward to doing appropriation bills around here.”

“I know Senator Collins ... is very interested in a normal appropriations process, and I’m hopeful we can get that back on track,” he said.

But with a 53-seat majority, Senate GOP leaders have already shown their willingness to sidestep Collins. Early in the megabill negotiations she detailed to White House officials, including chief of staff Susie Wiles, what changes she would need to vote for the bill, but leaders didn’t bend the legislation in her direction — and didn’t need to. As with the Trump spending clawback, they calculated they could afford to lose Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), her close ally and friend, by catering to holdouts on the right.

Collins and Murkowski opposed proceeding with the rescissions package Tuesday, emerging unmoved from a last-ditch lunch pitch from White House budget director Russ Vought, who has sought to placate Collins along with other administration officials. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the former GOP leader, joined them in opposition.

Republicans acknowledge privately that any turbulence in the appropriations process doesn’t help Collins, who has made her gavel and seniority a key part of her home-state image. Just last week, GOP senators had to hit pause on one of the 12 annual funding bills because of a partisan fight over the Trump administration’s plans to relocate FBI headquarters — the sort of dispute the typically bipartisan Appropriations Committee usually expertly resolves.

But they remain confident she’s running and can win despite forcing her to run against large parts of her own party’s agenda. She recently held a campaign event at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, according to one colleague who attended, who described it as a “lobster roll event.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said he wasn’t worried about Collins, calling her “the greatest politician.”

“She wins by as large a margin as a lot of people in red states,” he said. “She knows her state. She knows how to navigate. I don’t worry about it.”>

<President Donald Trump’s landmark legislation is driving a giant hole in governors’ budgets in a midterm year.

By slashing health care and food assistance for low-income Americans, Republicans in Washington are passing tremendous costs onto the states, leaving local leaders from both parties grasping for ways to make up for billions in lost federal dollars. The cuts are already threatening to endanger governors' education, public safety and disaster relief funds.

And this is all happening as up to 20 state leaders face reelection in 2026, forcing them to figure out how to message the fallout as their parties battle for control over the House next year.

“We don't put these budgets together that have a lot of fluff and rainy day funds that are easily accessible,” said Democratic Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, who chairs the Democratic Governors Association. “All of us are trying to figure out how to mitigate the damage that will be done to our constituents.”

Kelly, whose term ends next year, said governors across the country are now in “a world of hurt and concern.”

In deep blue New York, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is contending with an $11 billion budget hole as she faces reelection next year, possibly against Trump acolyte Rep. Elise Stefanik. Some 2,500 miles away in Arizona, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is warning the state can’t even begin to cover the losses from the federal legislation passed earlier this month. And in Nevada, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo has to try to persuade his voters of the merits of his party’s tax cuts geared toward the working class as he runs for reelection, even though he too has warned against slashing Medicaid.

It all amounts to a serious financial problem that’s even more acute for governors up for reelection next year. Many will have to decide between politically unpopular tax hikes or further changes to Medicaid that could kick more people off the program. State leaders have begun crunching numbers as they try to account for the looming funding gap.

Kelly's fellow Democratic governors are shackled with the same budget constrictions as Republicans — and similarly will face fallout. But despite the impending headache, the party sees political upside. Democrats intend to slam Republicans in the midterms over their cuts to Medicaid and food assistance in order to pay for tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy. That message will be a centerpiece of the minority party’s midterm strategy, and they’re anticipating voters will blame the GOP when they lose Medicaid coverage or experience the closure of a local hospital.

In a twist that stands to advantage Democratic governors, many of the GOP-backed cuts won’t take effect until after next year's elections — a provision Republicans instituted to armor itself.

“While the legislation is terrible, it is good ammo for governors in battleground states,” said Matt Grodsky, a Democratic consultant in Arizona. “In Arizona we know this will increase costs on families, utility rates will go up, for some families taxes will go up, and even if you’re not on Medicaid chances are your older relatives are.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a frequent Trump critic, will focus his campaign messaging on the president. “It’s the federal government and MAGA Republicans that are at fault for your food assistance, your rural hospitals closing or you getting kicked off Medicaid,” said a person close to Pritzker's reelection campaign, hinting at the Democratic governor's strategy for maneuvering around state budget concerns.

Last week, Pritzker featured the owner of Billie’s coffee shop in Chicago talking about the local business affect of the president's trade policies, as a way to localize Trump's actions and influence swing voters. “Packaging bags, the costs have increased,” the owner Gina says in the video. “Those are things that I feel like President Trump has created. We have cut as much as we can at this point. We need some stability, and that’s not what we’ve seen so far.”

Republicans are confident they can beat back the attacks by claiming they are effectively combating waste, fraud and abuse in welfare programs, while pointing to the bill’s popular provisions like eliminating taxes on tips or overtime.

Yet House Speaker Mike Johnson has privately conceded that the deeper Medicaid cuts pushed by the Senate will force House Republicans to lose their slim majority next year. Publicly, Johnson has struck a more optimistic tone, repeatedly telling reporters that he has “no concerns” about the bill costing Republicans’ seats.

<....Should Hobbs — facing one of the most competitive gubernatorial races next year — successfully channel backlash to the megabill to help her win reelection, she will have other problems to deal with.

An estimated 360,000 Arizonans stand to lose their Medicaid coverage. And experts have identified five rural hospitals on the brink of closure due to reduced revenue from Medicaid patients. The federal government shifting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program administration costs onto states could mean that Arizona will strain to continue feeding the 1 in 8 residents who rely on it to buy groceries.

The federal clawbacks are so significant that governors are warning they are entirely unable to make up the difference. "It's billions of dollars that we don't have," Hobbs said as the Senate passed the bill. "Even if we cut every single thing in the state, we don't have the money to backfill all these cuts."

By design, the bulk of the Medicaid and SNAP changes won’t take effect until after the midterms, a legislative maneuver intended to shield Republicans from immediate electoral consequences that could also give governors more time to reconfigure state funding formulas. But state appropriators say they are already mapping out how to account for the steep federal losses, and may need to start moving around funds in next year’s budgets.

“Do we fund food for hungry families, or do we fund our community colleges?’” said Arizona State Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, the Democratic minority leader. “Do we fund food for hungry families, or do we pay public school teachers? That is the position that Trump and the Republicans have put us in.”

Public polling shows the funding bill is widely unpopular. One recent Quinnipiac survey found 55 percent opposed the law compared to 29 percent in support.

The Republican governors who publicly supported the bill now have an especially difficult situation. GOP-led states with large populations of low-income Americans rely the most on federal assistance and lack the tax base or political willpower to support any revenue increases.

Repercussions from the megabill are unlikely to have any electoral bearing on the deep red states with upcoming gubernatorial elections. But it could pose problems for Lombardo.

In February, Lombardo urged Congress not to slash Medicaid funding to avoid “serious consequences” for vulnerable populations and the health care infrastructure – a rare break for a GOP governor against Trump and Congressional Republicans.

But when the bill was ultimately passed, Lombardo praised its no-tax-on-tips provision that influenced by Nevada and its thriving tourism economy, and said that while his administration assesses the bill “Nevadans should be excited about the potential impacts of tax cuts, investments in small businesses and American manufacturing, and efforts to secure the border.”

Democrats who control the Nevada state legislature, however, believe that the legislation will create more harm than good, and when people start to lose their health insurance they will blame Lombardo for not speaking out more against the law.

"It's just too early to tell how bad it is, but from what we know so far, it is going to be a life and death situation for many folks,” said Fabian Doñate, a Nevada state senator....>

<....In New York, state officials are warning the funding cuts will lead to job losses. A projected 63,000 jobs will be eliminated, nearly half from the health care sector.

Democratic strategists believe that’s a compelling argument for Hochul to make ahead of her campaign for a second full term next year, when she faces potential GOP challenges from Stefanik and Rep. Mike Lawler.

“Don’t just focus on the cost of it, talk about what people aren’t going to be able to do going forward,” said Basil Smikle, the former executive director of the New York State Democratic Party. “Talk about what they’ll lose. Kids aren’t going to a doctor, your child is losing SNAP benefits. That’s the way you talk about it — not so much as a spending issue, but frame it as a right you used to have but no longer have.”

Yet Democratic state lawmakers in Albany worry there are limits to that strategy. New York’s budget next year was already estimated to have a $7.5 billion gap to fill. That hole is expected to grow to $11 billion as a result of the federal cuts.

“Governmentally this is an atomic bomb,” Democratic state Sen. James Skoufis said. “It’s nothing but bad news. It’s a massive gaping hole in New York’s budget and I imagine most state budgets around the country.”

New York has one of the costliest Medicaid programs in the country. About 44 percent of the state’s residents are enrolled in Medicaid or have state-sponsored coverage. Some Democrats fret the cuts will lead to hospital closures and impact other big-spending areas of the budget like school aid.

“You can blame the federal government all you want, but it’s the state that’s going to be making the cuts to the hospitals and the nursing homes and the health centers and the schools,” Assemblymember Amy Paulin said. “It’s everywhere.”>

<Former Donald Trump attorney Alina Habba is all but certain to be headed for the door next week leaving behind portraits of herself on the walls and disgruntled staffers after her brief stint as a U.S. attorney comes to an end.

According to a report from the New York Times, her appointment as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey on an interim basis began in "chaos" and is now drawing to a close, with employees looking forward to her departure while also considering leaving too.

Habba's appointment as....the U.S. attorney was derailed by both of New Jersey's Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim, limiting her to a 120-day term in office.

According to the Times, "Her tenure has also shattered morale inside the U.S. attorney’s office and left many prosecutors looking for a way out, according to 16 close observers of the office," adding that she has infuriated career prosecutors by interjecting herself into their cases and keeping them out of the loop.

Case in point, the Times' Jonah E. Bromwich and Tracey Tully wrote Habba "granted a rare private meeting" with attorneys for Eliyahu Weinstein who was facing a 24-year sentence for investment fraud without inviting the attorneys handling the case.

The report notes, "The episode left members of her staff infuriated."

"Prosecutors have chafed at her availability to defense lawyers. She disbanded the office’s Civil Rights Division and killed the office’s longest-running prosecution just days before it was scheduled to go to trial.," the Times is reporting before adding, "Three framed pictures of herself now hang in a conference room named for a legendary New Jersey crime fighter, Frederick B. Lacey."

Habba's future in the office now lies with the state’s district court judges, who have the ability to extend her time in office which is scheduled to end on Tuesday.>

Will no-one rid New Jersey of this troublesome wretch?

<FTB agreez with perfidubious, but copying a lozer who haz upped hiz game to imprudent drawz, drawz, drawz

is NO WAY to be a Winner.

So, FTB will include some wishful thinking...>

As so often, <fredfilthmerchant> goes in for speaking of himself in the third person.

<Donald Trump's once-solid grip on Iowa may be loosening, as voters voice concerns over his policies on healthcare, renewable energy and agriculture — signaling the "first in the nation" presidential nominating state could again become a battleground.

For nearly a decade, Iowa has leaned Republican. Trump carried it by 9 points in 2016, 8 points in 2020, and about the same in 2024. "Iowans understand that President Donald Trump is the most consequential president of our lifetimes," wrote Joe Mitchell, a former Republican state lawmaker, in the Des Moines Register. "We would vote for him three more times if we could."

But national polls and local sentiment suggest his margin of support is narrowing.

Democrats and independents argue that key parts of Trump's agenda — from cutting Medicaid to promoting cane sugar over corn syrup — are alienating voters in this farm-heavy state. Ben Nuckels, a Democratic strategist, told Newsweek that Trump and his allies are "gutting health care, decimating Iowa's rural hospitals, cutting food assistance, exploding the federal deficit, and raising costs — all to give massive tax giveaways to their billionaire coastal donors."

He cited an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation showing that Iowa's rural hospitals — which make up nearly 68 percent of the state's community hospitals — stand to lose $4.45 billion in Medicaid funding under Trump's policies.

"Republicans talk about rural values, then cut the clinics and hospitals rural families depend on," Nuckels said.

Rural Discontent Grows

Iowa hasn't been considered a swing state in years, but that could be changing, according to Julie Stauch, Democratic candidate for governor.

"People on the ground here are definitely very angry about a wide variety of things Republicans are doing," she told Newsweek. "They're allowing themselves to be intimidated by a bully... but voters feel the impact of those decisions." She hears daily concerns about Medicaid cuts, clean water problems, and declining support for public schools.

Trump's push for Coca-Cola and other companies to replace corn syrup with imported cane sugar has sparked particular outrage in Iowa, where corn is a cornerstone of the economy. Farmers fear the move not only undercuts one of their key markets but also shifts economic benefits to Florida — the nation's top cane sugar producer — at Iowa's expense.

"All of our corn sweetener comes from American farms, raised by American farmers and processed in American plants," said Mark Mueller, a corn and soybean farmer from Waverly, Iowa, who told Newsweek the move was "a betrayal" of Trump's own "America First" pledge.

"What happened to the 'Make it in America' mindset?" Mueller asked, warning that even a small hit to corn prices — just a nickel or dime per bushel — could crush farmers in an industry already operating on razor-thin margins.

The Corn Refiners Association, an industry trade group, backed Mueller's concerns, estimating that eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from U.S. food and beverage supply chains could cut corn prices by up to 34 cents a bushel and result in a $5.1 billion loss in farm revenue.

"The resulting economic shockwave would lead to rural job losses and significant economic consequences to communities across the country," the group said in a statement.

Stauch likened the voter mood to a tsunami gathering offshore. "By the time we get to the election, I think we're going to find out we have a tidal wave on our hands," she said. "People are pissed off. They're angry."

Republicans Remain Confident

Still, Republicans remain publicly confident in Trump's standing. Iowa GOP chairman Jeff Kaufmann told Fox News in July that Trump "hasn't forgotten who brought him to the dance," calling his return to the state for Independence Day celebrations "very symbolic."....>

<....Republican strategist Nicole Schlinger added, "From the day his helicopter first landed here in 2015, Trump has had a special connection with Iowa. He's straight-talking, hardworking, and unapologetically proud of our country — just like Iowans."

While many Democrats believe these controversies present an opportunity to flip the state, others caution that partisan identity remains strong in rural Iowa. "Even when farmers were upset in 2020 over ethanol waivers and trade wars, Trump still carried the state comfortably," University of Northern Iowa political scientist Christopher Larimer told Newsweek.

Yet Trump's antagonistic stance toward wind energy — a powerhouse industry in Iowa — has also added to the sense of broken promises among some voters. Iowa generates more than half its electricity from the 6,000 wind turbines that dot its fields and pastures, and employs thousands in the sector. Yet Trump recently called windmills "big, ugly" and rolled back federal incentives for renewables.

His rollback accelerates the phase-out of wind tax credits, requiring projects to be completed by 2027 instead of the 2030s, and halts new wind leases on federal lands. The American Clean Power Association warns these policies could threaten more than 130,000 jobs tied to wind energy nationwide, many in Iowa.

While Democrats are hopeful that discontent over Trump's policies could reopen Iowa as a battleground, there is still a long way to go to turn it blue. The GOP, for its part, appears unconcerned for now about losing Iowa's six electoral votes, which were last won by a Democrat when Barack Obama carried the state in 2012.>

<As many of you know by now, Senator Dick Durbin penned a letter to Pam Bondi two days ago asking questions about information his office received from a protected whistleblower. The letter read, in part:

According to information my office received, Attorney General Bondi then pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests.

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.

Despite tens of thousands of personnel hours reviewing and re-reviewing these Epstein-related records over the course of two weeks in March, it took DOJ more than three additional months to officially find there is "no incriminating 'client list," and the memorandum with this finding includes no mention of the whistleblower or additional documents, the existence of which Attorney General Bondi publicly claimed on February 27.

This letter was made public right after I had filed a FOIA request for all the Epstein and Maxwell Grand Jury testimony (see my last post on Substack.) When I saw that over one thousand people had been put to work reviewing the Epstein files, I put a call out on my BlueSky account:

In the 24 hours since, I’ve received several messages, including from a former analyst that was assigned to review the files, and a few things stood out to me.

First, approximately 1,000 personnel in the Information Management Division (IMD) and the FBI New York Field Office were assigned to this task, confirming the whistleblower account made to Senator Durbin’s office. I can also confirm that a log exists tracking the mentions of Donald Trump in the files, and that there were approximately 100,000 files containing roughly 300,000 pages. Individual analysts were told to flag mentions of Trump by document and page number by logging them in an Excel spreadsheet, then they’d hand in their spreadsheet at the end of their (sometimes 24 or even 48-hour) shift. But it’s important to note that the agents were not told to flag Trump until later in a process that began mid-March.

The process of reviewing the Epstein and Maxwell files was chaotic, and the orders were constantly changing - sometimes daily. One person I spoke to on the condition of anonymity said that many agents spent more time waiting for new instructions than they did processing files. But here’s what caught my attention: the files were stored on a shared drive that anyone in the division could access. Normally, access is only granted to those working on a project, but because of the hurried nature of the exercise, the usual permission restrictions were not in place. Additionally, the internal SharePoint site the bureau ended up using to distribute the files toward the end did not have the usual restricted permissions. This left the Epstein and Maxwell files open to viewing by a much larger group of people than previously thought.

Regarding the ever-changing nature of the instructions, which one source described as “full panic mode,” there were at least four different review instructions. Keeping in mind that the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) are trained in FOIA redactions but many in the IMD are not, there were multiple video training sessions that went out on an unclassified network on what to mark for redaction, what not to mark, and how to record things that needed to be flagged. That means that video exists of trainers explaining the process of flagging instances of Donald Trump appearing in the files, and those videos went out on unclassified networks within the bureau. It’s also of note that the trainers toward the end were folks from the Department of Justice, and not the FBI....>

<....At first, the analysts were told to mark nothing. This was roundly rejected by the analysts, who were then told to not think about it as releasing the information - including victims names - to the public, but to think about it as releasing it to the Attorney General. It was assumed that Bondi and Patel wanted all the information, including the victim’s names and information. Analysts were told that what would be released would be solely up to Pam Bondi. Many feared that the victim’s information would be released or used for nefarious purposes. Eventually, lawyers from the Department of Justice were assigned to the project to oversee what was being flagged for redaction.

That changed pretty quickly and the analysts were next told to mark the victim’s names for redaction. Then soon after that, they were told to mark all other Personal Identifiable Information (PII) such as social security numbers and addresses. Then they were told to mark all descriptions of illicit acts for redaction. Then finally, they were instructed to keep a spreadsheet of instances when Trump was mentioned. After the spreadsheets of mentions of Trump were handed in, they were stitched together in one master list. I was not able to learn how many mentions of Donald Trump were on that master list.

As far as content, there was one confirmed mention of Donald Trump in the files reviewed by an analyst who again spoke on the condition of anonymity. Beyond that, there were other instances of Trump appearing in the files, but the number of times and to what extent is unknown.

But the log exists.

Something else that stands out is the potential stress and possible trauma created by the review of the files. They included photos of yacht parties and photo shoots that some analysts weren’t prepared for. The photos accompanied victim testimony, and in one instance, Epstein had instructed a group of young girls, many safely assumed to be minors, to remove their clothes and pose nude on the beach. “It was the casual coercion of it that hit me,” one analyst said.

After the review was complete, the DoJ and FBI decided not to release anything. That surprised analysts who thought for sure that a scrubbed version of the files would be released. From March 14th until its completion, the analysts assigned to review the files at IMD were told not to leave the building - working long shifts under chaotic and ever-changing conditions with exposure to disturbing materials. They did end up letting some analysts go home for short periods of time, but then they’d be right back in the office reviewing files. Morale was abysmal.

But there is a log of instances Donald Trump is mentioned in the files, there are video and PDF trainings instructing analysts to flag Trump, there were multiple instances of Trump appearing in the files, Patel and Bondi wanted victim information and PII, and sloppiness means that more people than previously known had access to the Epstein and Maxwell files. And while there was no indication of a ready-made, A to Z client list beyond the little black book that’s already public, “to say there’s nothing or to say it’s a hoax? Bulls***.”>

<It might seem like ancient history in Ohio. But it was only two years ago that Republican leaders were trying to make it almost impossible for voters in the highly gerrymandered state to amend the Ohio Constitution.

They issued dire warnings that wealthy “out-of-state special interests” would take control of the Ohio government if the state didn’t make it a lot harder to get amendments, such as those guaranteeing abortion and marijuana rights, into the founding document. The attempt went down in flames, and possibly down the memory hole.

Just two years later, Republican supermajorities in the Ohio legislature passed — and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed — a budget that gives the out-of-state billionaires who own the poorly run Cleveland Browns $600 million for a new stadium.

The budget DeWine signed on June 30 gives the Haslam Sports Group $600 million from the state’s unclaimed property fund. It pays the Browns owners to abandon their current downtown location and build a new stadium 16 miles away in Brook Park.

Famously burned once by a wealthy owner abandoning the city, Cleveland’s city government is in court fighting the move. And Ohioans with unclaimed property are suing to block the funding method DeWine approved.

Republican officials face a backlash over lavishing money on a team run so ineptly that in 2022 it guaranteed $230 million and traded three first-round draft picks to obtain DeShaun Watson — a quarterback facing numerous accusations of sexual misconduct. Watson served an 11-game suspension with the Browns, and when he finally did take the field, he sucked.

Last year, the team performed abysmally, winning just three games. And its owners, Dee and Jimmy Haslam, seem not to be doing their Republican benefactors any favors with the public.

Just three days after after receiving their controversial $600 million gift from the state, the Haslams bought a $25 million mansion in North Palm Beach, Fla., the Akron Beacon Journal reported.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer on Monday reported that it truly is a gift that the Tennessee truck-stop moguls are getting. The family — which is worth an estimated $14.4 billion — doesn’t have to repay a dime of the money it will receive from Ohio’s unclaimed funds, the paper reported.

Haslam Sports Group didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The gift to the Tennessee billionaires came as part of an Ohio budget that is seen as generally favoring the wealthy in a state where more than a quarter of the populace — 3 million people — are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

DeWine’s press secretary was asked about the message the Haslams sent with their purchase of a 5,600 square-foot mansion just 72 hours after receiving a $600 million gift from the taxpayers of Ohio. Had the governor effectively allowed out-of-state billionaires to use Ohioans’ money to buy a waterfront palace 1,000 miles from the nearest point in the state?

“We will not be offering comment on this,” Dan Tierney, DeWine’s press secretary, responded. “As you know, this issue is in active litigation.”

Just two years ago, Republican leaders were saying that Ohio’s government needed to be protected from such powerful, out-of-state interests.

They were pushing an amendment to the state constitution that would have raised the minimum share of votes to pass future amendments from 50% to 60% — a huge additional burden. It would also have raised the signature-gathering requirements just to get an amendment on the ballot so high as to make it all but impossible, critics said.

The proposed amendment contained a provision that sounded technical, but was logistically daunting. Instead of having to gather verified signatures of 5% or registered voters in half of Ohio counties, they would have had to gather them in all 88, no matter how remote and spread out their populations were.

Making voter-initiated amendments virtually impossible would have concentrated even more power in the hands of Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature, which would have been able to pass laws and initiate amendments the way it always had.

Critics said that would only make a bad thing worse. In recent years, the gerrymandered body has had an impressive track record when it comes to corruption, some of it the centerpiece of a major new HBO documentary about the corrupting influence of dark money on American politics....>

<....Undeterred, Republican leaders called a special election for August 2023 in which the public would vote on a measure that would effectively lock them out of the state constitution.

Abortion-rights and marijuana-legalization amendments were likely to be on the November ballot. But Secretary of State Frank LaRose claimed the August measure wasn’t aimed at blocking them.

“This is about empowering the people of Ohio to protect their constitution from out-of-state special interests that want to try to buy their way into our state’s founding document,” he said in July 2023.

LaRose’s office didn’t respond when asked whether the secretary had any objection to giving the Haslams — out-of-state-billionaires — $600 million in public money just as they bought a Florida mansion.

As it happened, campaigns on both sides of the amendment issue were mostly funded by out-of-state sources.

The effort to make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution failed by a 14-point margin. The abortion-rights and recreational-marijuana amendments passed by similar margins three months later.

The Haslams were hoping for a different outcome. In June 2023, the Knoxville, Tenn., family gave $50,000 to Protect Our Constitution, according to records at the Ohio Secretary of State’s office. That was a group aimed at making citizen-led amendments much more difficult, if not impossible.

The Haslams were also among the biggest contributors to a separate effort aimed at keeping the current crop of Ohio Republicans in power, regardless of what voters want.

Highly gerrymandered Republican supermajorities in the General Assembly have been accused of ignoring voters’ wishes. For example in 2019, they passed harsh abortion restrictions that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. The following year, Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment outlawing the restrictions by nearly a 15-point margin.

There are two anti-gerrymandering amendments in the Ohio Constitution. But, refusing to give up their gerrymandered supermajorities, DeWine, LaRose and other Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission ignored seven orders from a bipartisan majority of the Ohio Supreme Court to draw more equitable maps.

The idea behind such amendments is to draw congressional and state legislative districts that are competitive. That way, candidates have to listen to voters at least as much as they do party leaders and their wealthy donors.

After she aged off of the court last year, former Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor led an effort to pass an anti-gerrymandering amendment that she said couldn’t be ignored.

The Haslams were against it. They contributed $100,000 to Ohio Works, a group dedicated to stopping O’Connor’s anti-gerrymandering effort.

Their side won by seven percentage points on a night when Republican Donald Trump won Ohio by 11. Anti-gerrymandering advocates were sent back to the drawing board.

Then, perhaps not coincidentally, the Haslams contributed $120,000 to Ohio’s Republican legislative leaders in the months before they voted to give the out-of-state billionaires a $600 million gift of the state’s money.>

<The most striking feature of the Jeffrey Epstein drama playing out across the Trump administration is MAGA followers' shock at learning that Donald Trump was a longtime associate of Epstein's. Some even begin to wonder whether the president's name might appear in any documentation that may still exist about Epstein's alleged abuse of underage girls.

The MAGA movement is no stranger to sex abuse scandals—for years, it's invented ever-more salacious ones to pin on its political enemies rather than admit Trump's proven misdeeds.

Edgar Maddison Welch shot up the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., on December 4, 2016, just weeks after Trump had been elected president for the first time. As Q-Anon emerged in early 2017, "Pizzagate" became one of the central tenants of the cult.

By 2020, the theory had gone beyond merely claiming that Democrats and financial elites like Bill Gates were running pedophile rings, and turned into a full-blown delusion that they were torturing children to jack up their hormones and then draining them of their blood to extract psychoactive, life-extending substances. As Right Wing Watch documents, uber-Trump cultist and Q-Anon theorist Liz Crokin explains in one of her videos:

<Adrenochrome is a drug that the elites love. It comes from children. The drug is extracted from the pituitary gland of tortured children. It's sold on the black market. It's the drug of the elites. It's their favorite drug. It is beyond evil. It's demonic. It is so sick.>

When then-OMB Director Mick Mulvaney used the word "pizza" in a televised cabinet meeting, Crokin and other Trump cultists took the remark as confirmation of the "reality" of children being being tortured and having their adrenochrome "harvested" at a pizza restaurant in a D.C. suburb.

"President Trump and his staffers are constantly trolling the deep state," Crokin said of Mulvaney's reference.  "That's President Trump's way of letting you know Pizzagate is real and it's not fake. They're—he's constantly using their words against them and throwing it in their face and God bless him, it's amazing."

Much of this served to distract from a real sex scandal Republicans would rather not discuss: Trump's years-long and reportedly close association with Jeffrey Epstein, and the young women—one who claimed, but later retracted, that she was 13 at the time—who have accused Trump of sexual assault.

Now, the old proverb about the dangers of "riding the tiger" is haunting Trump.

Whataboutisms like, "But what about the Clintons?" and "What about Biden's laptop?" aren't working this time. People of all political stripes aren't willing to overlook the alleged abuse of youngsters.

Many Trump supporters have spent years emotionally and socially invested in a mythos that depicts the president as a brilliant, competent, and upstanding man with the best interests of the working class at heart. They've merged their own sense of self with the persona of Trump they've seen, heard, and internalized from within the carefully controlled right-wing information bubble.

Admitting betrayal or deception requires admitting they were wrong, which comes with deep psychological costs—thus the anguish and conflict we're seeing among the Trump base.

As MAGA icon Candace Owens offered this week in a wounded voice, "What is happening now is it seems like you think your base is stupid. That's how I feel. I feel like Trump thinks his base is stupid."

The big question now is whether the swamp of right-wing media can process the news in a way that will turn it into simply another passing-and-soon-forgotten Trump scandal, like his abuse of E. Jean Carroll, the Access Hollywood tape, or the 34 felony convictions arising from his payoffs to Stormy Daniels for their extramarital tryst.

Trump's ability to survive the Epstein saga will also depend on whether his administration can release anything that his base may consider credible. Original videotapes or photos that are not clearly doctored, first-person testimony by Ghislaine Maxwell should she ever be allowed to speak with the press or Congress (Republicans just blocked the latter), or more former teenage victims going on the record could spell doom for his relationship with his base.

On the other hand, Trump's efforts to squelch the conversation, strong-arm the press, and threaten reporters who ask Epstein questions may work. More concerning, if cornered Trump may decide to do something truly risky—something that could crash the economy or lead the nation to war—to change the subject.

If there's anything we know about Donald J. Trump, it's that he's a survivor. His tenacity and thirst for revenge are legendary, and if he makes it through this there will be hell to pay, at least in some quarters.

<Federal judges took a vote and decided not to extend Alina Habba's months-long tenure as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor, and the court appears to be well within its legal authority to do so, regardless of what certain higher-ups in President Donald Trump's DOJ have thus far said and done about it.

As this story was being written, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X in support of Habba, announcing her court-appointed replacement, Desiree Grace, "has just been removed," but Bondi did not immediately elaborate on who did the removal and on what authority.

"@USAttyHabba has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant," Bondi wrote. "Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has just been removed."

"This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers," Bondi continued.

Trump's former Mar-a-Lago case and hush-money trial criminal defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, separately provided more information, citing "the President's authority."

"The district judges in NJ just proved this was never about law—it was about politics. They forced out President Trump's pick, @USAttyHabba, then installed her deputy, colluding with the NJ Senators along the way. It won't work," he wrote. "Pursuant to the President's authority, we have removed that deputy, effective immediately. This backroom vote will not override the authority of the Chief Executive."

How on earth did we get here?

Habba had served as a legal spokeswoman and one of the attorneys for private citizen Trump through his New York civil fraud trial, E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit, and more before she parlayed those losses into a counselor to the president role and a position as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. She was appointed by Bondi on an interim basis nearly 120 days ago, the limit for acting appointments to serve under the relevant statute.

Although Trump has nominated Habba to serve permanently as U.S. attorney, the administration has not been able to get that nomination off the ground in the U.S. Senate before her acting stint's expiration, leaving Habba at the mercy of judges in the meantime.

To hear Blanche tell it, the move from the court was another example of unhinged left-wing activism.

"The district court judges in NJ are trying to force out @USAttyHabba before her term expires at 11:59 p.m. Friday," Blanche posted on X. "Their rush reveals what this was always about: a left-wing agenda, not the rule of law. When judges act like activists, they undermine confidence in our justice system. Alina is President Trump's choice to lead—and no partisan bench can override that."

In March, Bondi named Habba interim U.S. attorney pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 546, a statute which says such an appointee could remain in that role either upon confirmation by the U.S. Senate or for a period of 120 days.

The law expressly says that a district court "may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled" and that an "order of appointment by the court shall be filed with the clerk of the court."

In other words, as the clock ticked ever closer to Habba's 120-day limit, the court was left to vote and decide whether to install Habba as U.S. attorney "until the vacancy" — for which she has thus far been unsuccessfully nominated — "is filled" or to appoint someone else. The court, citing 28 U.S. Code § 546(d), chose door number two, selecting Habba's first assistant Desiree Grace instead.

Notably, the court's standing order said that the appointment was effective as of today or "upon the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General" of Habba, "whichever is later."....>

<....By Blanche's calculation, Habba's interim stint was set to expire this Friday just before midnight, so the question appears to be not whether the court had authority to issue the standing order but whether its decision was effective.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York recently followed the same procedure in the case of interim U.S. Attorney John Sarcone, declining to appoint him but this time without naming a successor. That decision came after Sarcone had apparently claimed falsely that the court had decided to appoint him at the end of his 120 days in office. In the end, the DOJ found a way to keep Sarcone in place, controversially appointing him as a first assistant U.S. attorney and as a "special attorney to the attorney general" through 28 U.S. Code § 515.

"The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought," the statute says.

Might Habba be re-installed on the same basis, especially now that the first assistant appointed to replace her is out of the picture?

The Habba and Sarcone examples aren't the only times 28 U.S. Code § 546 has come into play during the Trump administration. During the president's first term, his then-Attorney General Bill Barr in 2020 tried to force out U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman. The legal question at the time was whether the U.S. attorney general had the power to fire the court-appointed Berman.

Berman was first appointed in 2018 on an interim basis by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, but when his 120-day stint was up, a federal court appointed him as U.S. attorney and said he would remain so "unless the President of the United States nominates and the Senate confirms a United States Attorney for this district[.]"

When he refused to immediately step aside, Berman was clear about why he wouldn't.

"I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was 'stepping down' as United States Attorney," Berman said. "I have not resigned, and have no intention of resigning, my position, to which I was appointed by the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I will step down when a presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate. Until then, our investigations will move forward without delay or interruption."

Berman shortly thereafter left upon his firing by Trump.>

<The Trump administration is disregarding the Constitution in an attempt to "authorize unrestrained demographic profiling" by ICE agents in California — propping up "incorrect" and "contrary" new arguments that are "based on a misreading" of a federal judge's order and applicable law, immigration attorneys said Monday.

"They offer no authority for the novel proposition that merely having to litigate a preliminary-injunction motion constitutes irreparable harm," wrote lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups in an opposition filing Monday as they sue the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Kristi Noem on behalf of individuals who were allegedly stopped and arrested during ICE raids in Los Angeles.

The groups filed the brief with U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in opposition to a government motion to stay a lower court order that blocks ICE from conducting "roving" immigration raids, during which agents stop and detain "anyone on suspicion of being unlawfully present in the United States," per the injunction.

"Relief is immediately warranted to nip this unconstitutional encroachment in the bud," the Justice Department concluded in its emergency motion.

Immigration lawyers rebuked the DOJ's filing and arguments in their response, condemning them as "unavailing" and vague, while praising U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's July 11 order "to protect plaintiffs' rights" as being appropriately "narrow," per the brief.

"Their motion is based on a misreading of the order and applicable law and identifies no harm that could justify the extraordinary relief they seek," the opposition filing said, alleging that the declaration "does not refute the challenged policy" and says nothing about the plaintiffs themselves.

"Defendants submitted a new declaration with their stay motion in an effort to defend the seizures of plaintiffs … But that declaration states only that the detentions of each of those plaintiffs 'arose or were the result of a targeted enforcement action at a particular location where past surveillance and intelligence had confirmed that the target or individuals associated with him were observed to have recruited illegal aliens to work on landscaping jobs,'" according to the immigration lawyers. "It cannot be that a non-White, Spanish-speaking person's mere presence at a bus stop — where someone else, associated with different people who lacked legal status, was present at an earlier time — can justify a deprivation of liberty. And, indeed, that is not the law."

The Trump administration asked the 9th Circuit earlier this month for permission to continue warrantless arrests in Southern California as part of its controversial immigration enforcement efforts.

In a 51-page filing, the DOJ requested emergency relief in the form of an immediate administrative stay, as well as a broader stay pending appeal of the underlying case, to pause the temporary restraining order issued by Frimpong, a Joe Biden appointee. The crux of the dispute has been both the factual way ICE agents are conducting immigration sweeps in the nation's second largest city and the executive branch's basic legal authority to conduct such sweeps. One of the government's central arguments is that it was not given enough time to prepare.

The ACLU and other advocacy groups noted Monday how the district court said it reviewed a "mountain of evidence" documenting the government's alleged practice of violating the Fourth Amendment during its "roving" immigration patrols. "The government rebutted none of it," according to the opposition filing.

The Trump administration, per its motion to stay Frimpong's order, has settled on the argument that her TRO is "confusing" and therefore "will have a chilling effect" on immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs, however, note how the injunction has been in place for 10 days and the government does not "point to any evidence that lawful enforcement is being hampered in any way."

Writing in the brief Monday, the groups said: "Defendants ask this court to 'nip' any further remedial actions the district court might take 'in the bud.' But they offer no authority for the novel proposition that merely having to litigate a preliminary-injunction motion constitutes irreparable harm."

They added that if the Trump administration is not relying "solely on broad profiles" to form reasonable suspicion, then it will have "little difficulty obeying the order." If they are engaging in such a pattern of "unlawful detentive stops," as the district court found, then the order is ultimately necessary, according to the immigration groups.

<Attorneys for a retired 2024 election pollster and a top Iowa newspaper on Monday scathingly mocked President Donald Trump's "transparently improper" procedural gamesmanship and asked a federal judge to consider issuing sanctions if his defiance continues.

In the view of defendants the Des Moines Register, media company Gannett, and veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer, Trump is acting like "compliance" with court orders is "optional" and, therefore, he should not be rewarded with the stay of a deadline for filing an amended federal complaint without the inclusion of "illegitimate" current and former state lawmaker "co-plaintiffs" and "without adding 'new parties, allegations, or claims[.]"

"This is the second time Plaintiff Donald Trump has defied an order from this Court directing him to file an amended complaint removing the allegations he added 'to defeat the Court's jurisdiction over the case,'" the filing said. "The first time, after this Court denied Plaintiff's remand motion and ordered him to file an amended complaint within seven days, he instead filed a motion for stay."

"This Court promptly denied that motion and ordered Plaintiff to file his revised pleading on July 18th," the defendants continued. "He's now pulled the same stunt again."

As Law&Crime previously reported, U.S. District Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger granted the defendants' motion to strike the president's notice of voluntary dismissal from the record because an appeal at that time remained pending at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

After the 8th Circuit formally denied Trump permission to appeal, Trump "renewed" a motion for a stay of a refiling deadline that "rehashes the same rejected arguments as his prior attempt" while simultaneously asking the appellate court to consider withdrawing the mandate that returned the case to the district court, the defendants noted.

Trump's sudden attempt to drop his federal lawsuit came as he re-filed his complaint against Selzer and the newspaper in state court in late June — a day before Iowa's new anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law, which the governor signed in May, was set to take effect.

Anti-SLAPP measures are designed to prevent people from being intimidated against exercising their First Amendment free speech rights due to the threat of protracted and expensive, and potentially legally baseless, lawsuits. The defendants argue that Trump's "consumer fraud" case is one such suit.

Trump sued the Register and Selzer over a poll published ahead of the 2024 presidential election that predicted then-Vice President Kamala Harris had a slight lead over Trump in Iowa, a state he went on to win by about 13 points. Though Selzer later acknowledged the huge swing and a miss, saying that she was "humbled" by the way her career ended, litigation followed nonetheless.

In recent weeks, the wrangling in federal court has only gotten chippier, and the timing of the "clone action" Trump filed in state court — combined with the stay requests — has everything to do with it.

"Despite the Court giving him nearly six additional weeks to file his amended complaint, Plaintiff waited until the close of business on the 18th only to 'renew' his already-denied motion to stay," the defendants stated. "What is more, without bothering to tell this Court, on June 30th, Trump filed a clone action to this one in Iowa state court, asserting identical claims against identical defendants."

"So there's no question he had time to draft, prepare, and file the amended pleading this Court ordered. He just decided that compliance with this Court's orders is, to him, optional," the filing added.

The defendants asked Ebinger, a Barack Obama appointee, to order Trump to file his amended complaint within 48 hours or else "warn" him of sanctions.

"[A]fter this Court denied the Plaintiff a stay of its order requiring him to file a revised amended complaint, he decided to grant himself one. This Court should deny his 'renewed' motion, order that he finally file the required amended complaint within 48 hours, and warn him that failure to do so will result in sanctions," the filing concluded.>

<CNN Chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins confronted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to her face with President Donald Trump’s criticisms and asked if a new intel dump is just a stunt to improve her “standing” with Trump.

Gabbard was the opening act for White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt at Wednesday’s White House press briefing, during which she rolled out a document dump meant to support Trump’s baseless and discredited accusation of “treason” against former President Barack Obama and his top officials.

But Collins cut right to the chase when she asked about Trump’s repeated public rebukes, then stuck to her guns when Leavitt stepped in to object:

KAITLAN COLLINS: Thank you, Karoline. Two questions for Director Gabbard, just on this. Director Gabbard, you referenced the past intelligence reports and assessments on this, including that 2017 one that was signed off, as Ed noted, by every Republican on the Senate Intelligence Community, including the acting chair of the time, now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said in a statement that they did not find any evidence of Russian collusion, but what they did find, however, is very troubling and they found irrefutable evidence of Russia meddling.

One, are you saying that he’s wrong in that statement that he made then?

And secondly, what would you say to people who believe that you’re only releasing these documents now to improve your standing with the president after he said that your intelligence assessments were wrong?

DNI TULSI GABBARD: First, I want to correct something that you stated, which was citing the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report as being one and the same. I think you said the intelligence community.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has a very different function than the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The evidence and the intelligence that has been declassified and released is irrefutable. I’m going to let Caroline speak to Secretary Rubio.

PRESS SECRETARY KAROLINE LEAVITT: I’ll speak to both questions first on Secretary Rubio. He put out a statement in 2020 following that Senate Intelligence Committee report and he said what they found is troubling.

We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling, which the director of national intelligence just confirmed for all of you that Russia was trying to sow distrust and chaos.

But what’s the outrage in this that Secretary Rubia did not say at the time the Democrats were saying at the time is the fact that the intelligence community was concocting this narrative that the president colluded with the Russians, that the president’s son was holding secret meetings with the Russian, all of these lies that were never true.

And he also said at that time, we discovered deeply troubling actions taken by the FBI under Comey, particularly their acceptance and willingness to rely on the Steele dossier without verifying its methodology or sourcing the Steele dossiers that many outlets in this room ran as the gospel truth. And it was cooked up and paid for by the Clinton campaign.

As for your second question, Kaitlan, I think– who is saying that, that she would release this to try to boost her standing with the president?

KAITLAN COLLINS: Who has said that? Well, the president has publicly undermined her when it came to Iran. He said she was wrong. He told me that she didn’t know what she was talking about. That was on Air Force One, on camera.

PRESS SECRETARY KAROLINE LEAVITT: The only people who are suggesting that the director of national intelligence would release evidence to try to boost her standing with the president are the people in this room who constantly try to sow distrust and chaos amongst the president’s cabinet. And it is not working.

I am, I will just answer your question directly. I am with the President of the United States every day. He has the utmost confidence in director Gabbard. He always has. He continues to, and that is true of his entire cabinet, who is all working as one team to deliver on the promises this president made.>

<Senate Republicans are not happy with House conservatives they view as hijacking the congressional agenda to make the disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein-related files their burning focus.

GOP senators say the matter should be left to President Trump and the Department of Justice and want House lawmakers to pay more attention to finding a way to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

Instead, House Republicans on the Rules Committee have brought their chamber to a partial standstill by refusing to vote down Democratic amendments to force the publication of Epstein-related files.

The House is about to leave town for a five-week recess despite having passed only two of the regular appropriations bills for fiscal 2026.

“You can’t do anything because of Epstein,” one senior GOP senator fumed. “Wow, what a way to shut it down. … How does it happen?

“We’re supposed to be focusing on governing the country. Let’s not get caught up in the tabloid exposé stuff. Let’s keep the government open. Let’s pass appropriations bills. Let’s do the boring stuff of governing and let other people get all ginned up about who’s sleeping with who,” the lawmaker said.

Senate Republicans are second-guessing Johnson’s effort to quell the controversy by sending his members away from Washington early to begin the August recess.

“I think that’s a silly reason to go home,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has called on the Trump administration to “just release the damn files.”

Tillis suggested Johnson is deluding himself if he thinks that the problem will simply go away by sending lawmakers away from Washington for an extended recess.

“I’ve got to believe that there has to be more to it, because that almost seems to suggest if they go away or four or five — or how many weeks they’re going to go away — that that problem is going to go away,” he said of the decision to put the House in recess starting Thursday.

“Do you guys really think you’re going to take your eyes off this issue come Labor Day?” Tillis asked a group of reporters. “The answer is ‘no.’ So, I think it’s a false premise assuming if they just walk away and avoid this vote, that it’s not going to continue to be an issue.” he said, referring to a push to vote on a resolution to demand the release of all Epstein-related files.

If anything, some GOP senators worry Johnson’s move will sharpen the ardor to press Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all of the Epstein-related files held by her department.

So far, at least 11 House Republicans are backing the bipartisan legislation led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) that calls for the complete release of government files related to Epstein.

Another bombshell dropped Wednesday afternoon when The Wall Street Journal reported the Justice Department told Trump in May that his name is in the Epstein files. NewsNation, The Hill’s partner network, has confirmed the news.

The paper also reported Bondi told Trump at a meeting that the Justice Department would not release additional Epstein documents because they included child sexual abuse material.

Just a few days ago, Republicans in Washington were riding high.

They passed a rescissions package for the first time since 1992, defunding PBS and NPR and global aid programs— a longtime goal — and GOP senators celebrated the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a lavish dinner with Trump at the White House on Friday.

But they’re now finding their party plunged into a controversy over alleged sex-trafficking acts that may have happened years or decades ago....>

<....Republican senators want the storm clouds of scandal to blow away, but they fear they’re going to continue to hang over Washington as long as some of their House colleagues hammer away at Trump’s Justice Department and the FBI over Epstein.

“How does it ever go away?” asked a second Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on Johnson’s handling of the debate over the Epstein files.

That senator predicted Republican lawmakers will resume fighting over Epstein and what information the Department of Justice may have when they return to Washington in September.

“How do you leave? When you come back, the issue is still here,” the senator remarked. “It’s not something that goes away.”

Johnson got into a testy back-and-forth Wednesday when a reporter asked him about pulling down a vote on a rule because of “fear of Epstein votes.”

“No, we don’t have any fear. No, hold on. … There’s no fear. We’re not going to allow the Democrats to use this as a political cudgel,” Johnson insisted, arguing Democrats didn’t make any move to make the Epstein-related files public when they controlled the White House and Department of Justice.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) noted the call for more information about Epstein’s illicit activities is a potent issue that has gripped the public’s attention.

“I think people are kind of curious and want more information, whether it’s potentially testimony [from longtime Epstein partner Ghislaine Maxwell] … or the release of credible information,” he said. “ A lot of people support that.”

“It also probably speaks to a larger issue: People feel like the government has lied to them for so long on certain things,” he added. “People would like to land on the side of more transparency.”

Senate Republicans say they’re not particularly interested in efforts to subpoena Maxwell to testify.

Nor are they pushing to compel Bondi to answer questions about a claim that she instructed 1,000 FBI personnel to comb through 100,000 Epstein-related documents to search for references to Trump.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) pointed out Wednesday that all the Republican clamor for more information about Epstein is happening in the House, not the Senate.

“It’s clearly a bigger issue there than it is here,” he said. “You’re not hearing it here.”

“I try and stay out of the House’s businesses. That’s an issue that they’re going to have to manage, and hopefully they’ll come up with a path forward that they can all unite behind,” he added.>

<A trio of judges slowed the Trump administration's effort Wednesday to immediately deport Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia for a second time, in a series of back-to-back court orders that were praised by Abrego's attorneys — but had Trump officials posturing for a fight.

The orders came in a span of 90 minutes from the U.S. districts of Tennessee and Maryland and halted, for now, the Trump administration's stated plans to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest Abrego Garcia and immediately begin removal proceedings to deport him to a third country, such as Mexico or South Sudan. Justice Department officials acknowledged that plan in court earlier this month, telling a federal judge in Maryland that the handoff from U.S. marshals to ICE officials would likely take place outside the federal prison where Abrego Garcia is currently being held.

Those fears were bolstered further after senior Trump administration officials took to social media Wednesday to rail against the string of court rulings. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin vowed on X Wednesday that Abrego Garcia "will never walk America's streets again."

"The fact this unhinged judge is trying to tell ICE they can’t arrest an MS-13 gang member, indicted by a grand jury for human trafficking, and subject to immigration arrest under federal law is LAWLESS AND INSANE," she said.

"We have heightened, ongoing concerns about the Trump administration's compliance with any and all those involved" in the case, Chris Newman, an attorney who represents Abrego Garcia’s family, told Fox News Digital in an interview Wednesday after the orders.

His concerns came despite the string of near-term victories for Abrego Garcia, aimed at affording him due process and access to counsel ahead of his removal.

In Nashville, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw on Wednesday ordered Abrego Garcia's release from criminal custody pending trial, writing in a 37-page ruling that the federal government "fails to provide any evidence that there is something in Abrego’s history, or his exhibited characteristics, that warrants detention."

He also poured cold water on the dozens of allegations made by Trump officials, including by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in Nashville last week, that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member.

"Based on the record before it, for the court to find that Abrego is member of or in affiliation with MS13, it would have to make so many inferences from the government’s proffered evidence in its favor that such conclusion would border on fanciful," he said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, tasked with implementing that order, stayed Abrego Garcia's release from criminal detention for 30 days, a request made by his attorneys earlier this week.

Two minutes after Judge Crenshaw’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, the judge overseeing his civil case in Maryland, issued an emergency order blocking the administration from immediately taking Abrego Garcia into ICE custody, citing concerns he would otherwise be removed immediately and without due process.

She also ordered that Abrego Garcia be sent to the ICE Order of Supervision at the Baltimore Field Office, and that the Trump administration notify Abrego Garcia and his counsel of any plans to remove him to a third country 72 hours in advance, to ensure access to counsel and to challenge the country of removal.

Lawyers for Abrego Garcia praised the court orders Wednesday, though they stressed there is a long road ahead — and one that remains fraught with uncertainty.

"These rulings are a powerful rebuke of the government’s lawless conduct and a critical safeguard for Kilmar’s due process rights," Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, said Wednesday.

However, Abrego Garcia’s case has been the center of a monthslong legal maelstrom and is one that critics argue has allowed the Trump administration to test its mettle on immigration enforcement and its ability to slow-walk or evade compliance with federal courts....>

<....Whether the administration will appeal the orders Wednesday, or otherwise honor them, remains to be seen.

The Supreme Court has in recent months sided with the Trump administration on a number of key court cases, as well as a flurry of emergency orders, suggesting they could move for emergency intervention at that level.

Though justices on the high court ordered unanimously that the Trump administration facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. earlier from El Salvador this year, it's unclear whether they would intervene at this point to head off the administration's planned removal. Any challenge to the Tennessee orders, including the 30-day stay, would also be heard by the conservative-majority U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which could block the lower court orders from taking force.

Others noted the Trump administration's posture in recent immigration cases, including in the wake of their removal of hundreds of migrants to El Salvador's CECOT prison earlier this year.

Critics argue the Trump administration has been slow, or downright recalcitrant, to comply with court orders — and their actions prompted two judges in Washington, D.C., and Maryland to threaten potential contempt proceedings earlier this year. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's April ruling, which found there was probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for violating his order blocking them from using a wartime law to deport migrants to CECOT, was stayed by a federal appeals court.

On the other hand, Trump officials have railed against the "activist" judges, who they argue have blocked their agenda and overstepped their court powers.

Lawyers for Abrego Garcia and his family say they are clear-eyed about the administration and expected attempts to challenge the orders, even while the details of the efforts remain unclear.

"It’s now a matter of public record that their posture since the beginning is to say, ‘F--- you’ to the courts," Newman, the lawyer for Abrego Garcia’s family, said in an interview.

"So, to say that we are being vigilant about potential bad faith efforts by the Trump administration would be an understatement," he said.>

<Mike Rounds hasn’t even launched a re-election campaign. He certainly hadn’t sought out an endorsement from President Donald Trump.

Yet it arrived this week anyway — three years after the South Dakota GOP senator said the 2020 election was “fair” and Trump vowed that he would “never endorse this jerk again.”

Shortly after Trump met on Monday with the state’s other senator, Majority Leader John Thune, the president called Rounds. Trump then posted his “complete and total endorsement.”

Rounds told Semafor that he took it as a sign of Trump’s pragmatic approach to Republican senators who haven’t always aligned with him.

“He has the ability to look at the practical side of things, and decide we can still work together,” Rounds said. “He’s found out that I’m very serious about trying to work to get things done. And we agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on.”

A Trump shift toward forgiving and forgetting lawmakers’ past perceived transgressions could have far-reaching implications for his party, especially in Texas and Louisiana. In Texas, GOP Sen. John Cornyn is facing state attorney general Ken Paxton in the country’s roughest primary, and polls show Paxton could make the seat harder to hold in a general election.

And perhaps no GOP senator has a tougher path to winning over Trump than Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who voted to convict the president in his 2021 impeachment trial. Cassidy was invited twice last week to the White House, though, to celebrate legislative victories.

While it’s early to declare a new Trump rule for endorsements, his support of Rounds and close working relationship with Thune — whom Trump once vowed to take down in a primary — has most of his party optimistic that he’ll prioritize keeping the Senate majority and backing incumbents.

A White House official said there’s no “litmus test or a line” to govern getting an endorsement: “It’s different for every person.”

Still, this official added, “it’s a little too early on some of the more questionable ones … It’s [about] getting a better lay of the land and having better context as we get closer to the midterms.”

Cornyn publicly questioned Trump’s ability to win a general election a couple of years ago — which wasn’t exactly a unique opinion in the party heading into the 2024 election. But now Cornyn is optimistic that Trump might back him if he can close the polling gap with Paxton, who leads in early surveys. He’s also unworried about past comments sinking his chances.

“JD Vance wouldn’t be vice president and Marco Rubio wouldn’t be secretary of state if the president held a grudge,” Cornyn told Semafor, referring to both men’s past critical comments about Trump. “And I said nothing to compare with what they said.”

There are also persistent rumors in the party that Paxton could be offered a job in the Trump administration that would head off the primary. One person close to Trump suggested nothing firm is in the works, but speculated that a Paxton offer is possible.

Meanwhile, Cassidy spoke to the president at both events he attended this week but has not yet broached an endorsement. He’s planning to launch his re-election campaign next month.

“I got my shoutout, and continue to work very well together,” Cassidy said of his visits with Trump. “I don’t tend to speak for the president. But ... right now we’ve got a great working relationship.′

Trump does like winners, and Cassidy has released internal poll numbers showing him way ahead of Louisiana Treasurer John Fleming. Republicans still believe another candidate, like Louisiana Rep. Julia Letlow, could enter the Senate primary.

“Will he endorse Cassidy? I seriously doubt it. Will he leave him alone? I think so,” said the person close to Trump. “Polling is polling. [The president] is well past the time when he used to do things because he liked a guy.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, hasn’t launched her re-election campaign yet, either, but nonetheless got invited to the White House recently for a meeting with officials about a third bid, which Republicans see as vital for keeping the majority.

She’s another case of Trump embracing Republicans who’ve gone their own way in the Trump era.

Ernst said warm things about Nikki Haley, Trump’s top primary foe, but quickly backed him after Haley dropped out in 2024. Now she said she’s getting “strong encouragement” from the White House.

“There’s always a lot of palace intrigue. It was nice to sit down and visit with the White House, and I’m so supportive of President Trump and everything he’s doing,” Ernst said in an interview. Asked if Trump would endorse her, she replied: “Yeah, I think he would.”....>

<....Ernst, Cassidy, and Cornyn have voted with Trump reliably since he became president, though not always reflexively. Ernst initially balked at Pete Hegseth’s nomination to be defense secretary, Cassidy struggled with the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Health and Human Services Department, and Rounds wrestled with Trump’s $9 billion spending cuts package.

But Trump endorsed Rounds soon after the South Dakota Republican voted for those cuts. Rounds said that vote didn’t come up in his conversation with the president on Monday.

The White House official said Trump is “appreciative of anyone” who helped pass his “big beautiful” tax and spending cuts bill earlier this month. Ernst, Cassidy, Cornyn, and Rounds are all in that camp.

Room for Disagreement

Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., was one of the GOP’s three dissenters on the megabill.

He told Semafor that before his decision not to run again, he didn’t ask for Trump’s endorsement and isn’t “sure that his endorsement would have helped me in a general election in North Carolina next year.”

“I’m not sure that the president’s endorsement was something I would have sought this time. I didn’t seek it the last time, but it was helpful,” Tillis said. “And the fact that I would or would not get it had nothing to do with my decision to not run again.”

Incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, also opposed that bill. She also voted to convict Trump in 2021’s impeachment, among many votes she’s broken with him on.

She told Semafor “I’ve never had his endorsement and I’ve never sought it. And I run my own race.”

Then there’s the special case of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., whom Trump wants to defeat in a primary after Massie’s repeated clashes with the president so far this year.

Burgess and Shelby’s View

We often hear how important loyalty is to the president — and that’s still the case. He’s simultaneously showing that he can put that aside when it comes to winning Senate seats.

It may have helped that he learned in 2022 how hard it is to beat incumbent senators; that year he mounted a failed attempt to oust Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Trump’s team includes campaign veterans like Susie Wiles whom he trusts enough to help steer him. For Wiles and other top aides, winning in the midterms is crucial — more crucial than publicly flaming a lawmaker who has a history of irritating Trump.

Trump’s advisers also understand GOP primaries are not helpful. The White House worked with the National Republican Senatorial Committee to avoid a contested primary in Michigan, for example, and they’re working in tandem to convince Ernst to run again.

The president also knows governing isn’t easy, and he’s cognizant of the dramas that plagued him eight years ago.

No one inside the administration, particularly Trump, wants to risk dealing with impeachments or stalled bills again — even if that means backing some Republicans who annoyed him in the past.>

<Columbia University announced on Wednesday that it has reached a deal with the Trump administration following months of negotiation to restore federal funding to the school, in a move described by the administration as a “seismic shift” in its fight with elite higher education.

Under the terms of the deal to resolve several federal probes into allegations that it had violated anti-discrimination laws, Columbia did not admit to wrongdoing but agreed to pay the government a $200 million settlement over three years and an additional $21 million to settle US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations.

In exchange, the university said in its statement, “a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 — will be reinstated and Columbia’s access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored.”

Columbia said the agreement also codifies policy changes it announced in March following the revocation of $400 million in federal funding over campus protests, including restrictions on demonstrations, new disciplinary procedures and immediately reviewing its Middle East curriculum.

“While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution’s leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed,” the university said.

An independent monitor will oversee the agreement’s implementation.

“The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,” acting university President Claire Shipman said in a statement. “Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.”

Still, the university has agreed to provide the Trump administration with access to “all relevant data and information to rigorously assess compliance with its commitment to merit-based hiring and admissions,” a senior White House official said.

The agreement, the official added, “mandates a comprehensive review of Columbia’s portfolio of programs in regional areas, starting with those relating to the Middle East.”

And the school agreed to review its admissions process and “strengthen oversight of international students,” according to the official. Columbia will “assess applicants’ reasons for wishing to study in the U.S., sharing relevant data with the Federal Government,” the official said.

President Donald Trump celebrated the agreement in a post on Truth Social Wednesday evening, where he thanked Education Secretary Linda McMahon for her work on the deal and commended Columbia “for agreeing to do what is right.”

“Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,” he added.

Columbia faced financial headwinds

Shipman noted in a message to the Columbia community on Wednesday evening that the financial pressures on the school extended beyond the $400 million funding freeze.

“We have seen not only $400 million in federal grants frozen, but also the majority of our $1.3 billion a year in federal funding placed on hold. The prospect of that continuing indefinitely, along with the potential loss of top scientists, would jeopardize our status as a world-leading research institution,” she said in the letter.

In her first interview since the deal was announced, Shipman framed the federal funding freeze as an existential threat to the university that needed to be resolved, saying finding an agreement with the White House was the “responsible path.”

“This resolution is really going to allow us to turn a page on a period of deep instability for our institution,” she told CNN’s Kate Bolduan Thursday.

Shipman defended the school from accusations that it capitulated to the Trump administration.

“The narrative that paints this as a kind of binary situation, courage versus capitulation, is just wrong. It’s too simplistic. This was a really, really complex problem, and I will argue over and over again that choosing to listen, choosing to try to solve the problem with everything that we had at stake is not capitulation. It was extraordinarily difficult,” Shipman said.

Shipman said her team weighed the possibility of taking the Trump administration to court but determined that the threat of long-term damage was too severe....>