Donald

Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO says he will meet with the US president on Monday to discuss the offer.

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) chief executive Dana White has said he will meet with Donald Trump after the US president offered him the job of White House press secretary.

Speaking at a new conference after a boxing event in London on Saturday, White said he would meet with Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the president’s offer.

“Dana will be a Press Secretary like none other,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier on Saturday. “Dana, please take the job!”

Trump also requested that White “bring with him assistants, even though some are not from our Country”.

Trump listed and posted pictures of six current and former UFC title holders to join White: Islam Makhachev and Khabib Nurmagomedov from Russia’s Dagestan region; Americans Justin Gaethje, Daniel Cormier and “Kayla Harris”, likely a reference to Kayla Harrison; and Amanda Nunes, a Brazilian who became a US citizen last year.

“We need these people to defend us against the Lunatic Left,” Trump wrote.

The White House press secretary role has been vacant since Katie Zacharia’s tenure ended ‌last ⁠month after just five days.

Zacharia succeeded Karoline Leavitt, who stepped down from the role at the end of August.

White and Trump first worked together in the early 2000s, but they grew closer since ⁠the UFC chief publicly backed Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016.

In recent years, Trump has attended several UFC events, and in June, the White House hosted a night of UFC fights as ⁠part of celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of US independence.

The White House press office already has a former UFC spokesperson among its ranks: Director of Communications ⁠Steven Cheung, who worked for White’s organisation from 2013 to 2016.

Cheung shared the president’s message on X and said, “Hell yeah! Do it, @DanaWhite! It’ll just be like old times!”

Trump lashed out at them on Truth Social and called the Democratic lawmakers “extortionists”.

United States President Donald Trump has ordered the ⁠⁠Department of Justice (DOJ) to look into Democrats ‌‌for “threatening a lot of people” with impeachment and other ⁠⁠forms of ⁠⁠punishment, following their midterm election victory.

In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump said what Democrats had done amounted to a “criminal act”, without providing evidence.

The post comes days after Democrats won control of both chambers of the US Congress from Republicans in Tuesday’s midterm elections. Democratic lawmakers and newly elected candidates have said they would pursue probes into the Trump family’s financial dealings, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as well as investigations into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“The Democrats are going around threatening a lot of people,” Trump wrote, adding that some of his cabinet have been threatened with impeachment. “This is extortion at the highest level, and they should be held accountable for this.”

Trump also said, without evidence, that some Democrats were threatening his donors, whom he called “some of the most respected people anywhere in the World”. He said Democrats were targeting them for their political views, specifically calling out Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin. He gave no evidence of her threatening people over their views.

When Democrats take control of Congress in January, they will be able to conduct a range of investigations, in which they can order access to documents, summon Trump officials to testify, and hold hearings.

Democratic Representative Robert Garcia of California, who is likely to chair the powerful House Oversight Committee, which serves as the investigative committee in the House and has broad jurisdiction and power, posted “LAWYER UP” on social media after it was clear Democrats would take the House.

During his second term, Trump has called for investigations into his political enemies, including the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), James Comey, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

It began as something merely conceptual, a tantalizing possibility.

Last June, immediately after the Rams traded for star edge rusher Myles Garrett, the NFL grapevine began buzzing:

Would Aaron Donald, a three-time NFL defensive player of the year, consider coming out of retirement to play with Garrett, a two-time winner of the award?

After a summer of rampant speculation, Donald signed on to join what was already regarded as a Super Bowl-favorite team.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Gary Klein breaks down what to watch for Sunday when the Rams face the Washington Commanders.

But Donald’s ramp-up to achieve football shape precluded him from playing in the season opener against the San Francisco 49ers. And Garrett underwent knee surgery after that loss, so the two stars were unable to play together for seven games.

On Sunday, it will finally happen.

Barring an unexpected setback, Garrett and Donald will line up together for the first time when the Rams play the Washington Commanders at Northwest Field in Landover, Md.

Two players accustomed to being double- or triple-teamed — two players with a combined 236½ sacks — are eager for opportunities.

“The offenses are really going to have to pick their poison,” said Garrett, who amassed an NFL season-record 23 sacks last season. “‘Who’s going to be freed-up this play?’

“I think either of us are pretty good at winning one-on-ones, so we’ll have some fun.”

Said Donald, one of the most dominant interior linemen in NFL history: “It’s always good when you’ve got all the pieces to the puzzles out there.”

The Rams (4-4) aim to build on their modest two-game winning streak and get over .500 for the first time this season.

The defense will be without cornerback Jaylen Watson, who suffered a season-ending shoulder injury in last Sunday’s victory over the Chargers. Cornerback Trent McDuffie is questionable after suffering a back injury against the Chargers and not practicing this week.

Rams defensive tackle Aaron Donald tackles New York Giants running back Najee Harris for a loss during a Rams win on Sept. 21 at SoFi Stadium.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

But Garrett’s return should energize a team that still intends to play in Super Bowl LXI at SoFi Stadium.

The Rams have only 12 sacks, which is tied for 26th among 32 teams. Edge rusher Byron Young has a team-best 4½ sacks. Donald is still looking for his first.

The attention the Commanders and future opponents must pay to Garrett and Donald will open play-making opportunities for others, Young said.

“I always call it art,” he said of Garrett’s and Donald’s ability to excel despite double teams. “Because it’s not easy when you’ve got four hands on you 90% of the time. And they still make it work.

“So it’s going to be fun. I can’t wait.”

Defensive lineman Braden Fiske said players are acclimating to Garrett’s skill set and play style.

“I’m sure there will be some kinks to work out early on, but it’s still pretty early in the season,” Fiske said. “He’s been playing for 10 years, so it shouldn’t be too hard to catch his stride.

“But he looks damn good out there.”

Rams left tackle Alaric Jackson played against Garrett in 2023, when the Rams defeated the Cleveland Browns at SoFi Stadium. The 6-foot-4, 272-pound Garrett’s size, speed and burst at the snap is “amazing,” Jackson said.

“He’s like a running back with skill but like a D-lineman with his power,” Jackson said. “He’s good at change of direction — like on a dime…

“He’s kind of like a do-everything kind of guy who’s seen everything as far as looks.”

Coach Sean McVay wants Garrett to “play within himself” Sunday.

“He doesn’t have to do anything other than be Myles and play one-eleventh of what the rest were asking to do for the defense,” McVay said.

Garrett said he won’t fight the excitement, the joy and all the emotions of finally getting to play again.

“You don’t try to push them back,” he said. “You open yourself to them. You accept it.

“After acknowledging it, you go out there and do what you’ve always done.”

Barring a setback, Rams edge rusher Myles Garrett will return Sunday against the Washington Commanders, coach Sean McVay said Friday.

Garrett, the reigning NFL defensive player of the year, has not played since the season-opening defeat by the San Francisco 49ers in Australia. Garrett had no tackles in the 27-7 defeat and said afterward that his performance was “the worst version” of himself. He was placed on injured reserve after undergoing a procedure on his left knee, and returned to practice this week.

“It has been exciting to be able to get Myles back into the mix with the other guys that I think have played really well up front and we’ve got to be able to bring it to life, and it will be fun to see,” McVay said.

The Rams are 4-4 and won their last two games against the Las Vegas Raiders and the Chargers.

Sunday’s game will mark the first time that Garrett and defensive lineman Aaron Donald will play together. Donald ended a two-year retirement a few months after the Rams traded edge rusher Jared Verse, a first-round draft pick and two other future picks to the Cleveland Browns for Garrett, who amassed an NFL season-record 23 sacks last season.

Donald, 35, is a three-time NFL defensive player of the year. Garrett, 30, has won the award twice.

“He’s looked awesome in practice and I’m excited for him to just go play within himself, “McVay said. “Doesn’t have to do anything other than be Myles.”

Tight end Terrance Ferguson and running back Ronnie Rivers also are on track to be activated from injured reserve, McVay said.

United States President Donald Trump has said he is making Stephen Miller his new White House chief of staff.

Trump made the announcement on his Truth Social account on Friday, calling Miller “one of my most trusted advisors”. He said Miller would become chief of staff starting Monday, replacing Susie Wiles.

“Susie Wiles, who has done an outstanding job, will be moving over to the Trump Political Operation. I want to thank her for her service as Chief of Staff — She has done a great job!”

Miller has been one of Trump’s closest confidants and advisers across both his presidential terms, after joining then-candidate Trump as a campaign adviser in 2016.

He has been the main architect behind the president’s hardline border and deportation policies, a rallying issue in the US midterm elections.

Democrats are widely expected to launch investigations into Miller upon taking control of the US House of Representatives and Senate in January.

Trump had been widely expected to shake up his staff following the midterm drubbing, which saw Democrats net seven US Senate seats, with two states, Alaska and Mississippi, still counting their results. Democrats have also won 253 seats in the 435-member US House, with 27 races still set to be counted.

Despite the vote largely seen as a referendum on Trump, Miller’s appointment largely represents a doubling down on his most controversial policies.

Miller has not yet commented on the election results, but in a post on X on election day, he urged Trump supporters to vote.

“Send a message to the corrupt media, corrupt Democrats and corrupt leftwing politicians who want to steal your future and destroy the inheritance of your children,” he wrote. “Get to the polls and protect the ones you love.”

For her part, Wiles, who has been credited with orchestrating Trump’s election comeback in the 2024 race, said serving as a chief of staff was “the honor of a lifetime”.

“I’m so proud to have been a part of what we’ve accomplished together from securing our border and cutting taxes to strengthening our economy and putting America First,” she said.

“I think it’s safe to say that we are tired of being pitted against each other. We are tired of being told to hate each other. It has been 10 years of this kind of politics. Politics as blood sport. Politics as trolling and owning. Politics as professional wrestling. It tears families apart. It ends friendships, and it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time.”

So said Senator-elect James Talarico in his victory speech on election night after he won the first United States Senate seat in Texas for the Democratic Party in almost 40 years.

I don’t like Talarico or his policies, but I agree with him on one thing: The American people are tired of being pitted against one another. We need more uniters and fewer dividers in the Republican Party and US politics in general.

This is the conclusion many American voters seem to have reached after 10 years of Donald Trump dominating the right.

A decade ago, he forcefully entered the political scene with a radically different approach and provocative rhetoric. He won his first US presidential election by attacking his opponents with clever and cutting nicknames. Crooked Hillary. Low-energy Jeb. Pocahontas. Little Marco. Crazy Bernie. Lying Ted.

All were aimed at diminishing his rivals in ways that only a rapturous crowd of adoring MAGA fans could really appreciate. His attacks played well on social media and reflected an American culture that was far less deferential to the political establishment, far coarser in its language and far more interested in being entertained than being informed.

Trump’s attacks, performed live at his raucous rallies, had all the earmarks of a professional wrestling bout. It was blood sport at its most basic level. And Trump’s supporters ate it up, loving how he stood up to an elite that obviously despised them.

His opponent in the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, called half of his supporters a “basket of deplorables”.

Seven years before Trump formally entered the race for the White House, Barack Obama in a speech in San Francisco had said that people like them “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

Trump gathered up these angry voters, many of whom had protested during the Tea Party movement, and created “Make America Great Again” (MAGA). They loved the visceral way Trump communicated. They loved that he promised to end illegal immigration and free-trade policies that destroyed manufacturing jobs.

Trump’s rhetoric, coarse as it was, seemed honest, authentic, unscripted, and totally real, not poll-tested, not AI-generated, not written by expensive speechwriters. Trump was talking to them, not at them. He had listened to their fears and promised to fight back with a vengeance.

When Trump claimed the political establishment had stolen his re-election, he didn’t sit idly by, accepting the results. He consulted his lawyers, came up with a dubious legal strategy and then unleashed his supporters on Capitol Hill, hoping upon hope that their pressure would bend the hallowed traditions of presidential succession to his will. It didn’t work, but it also didn’t disqualify him.

Over the four years of President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump survived legal attacks, threats of imprisonment and assassination attempts to become an invincible force who seized power again in 2024. His ascent seemed like destiny.

But as it often does, the fickle winds of the electorate changed direction. They used to love his unconventional approach to politics, but now they wanted him to deliver on his promises to lower inflation and gas prices. He had once promised to keep us out of foreign wars, but that promise was broken, too. Perhaps he had a good reason to attack Iran, but he failed to make a convincing case to the American public, and voters quickly grew disenchanted with another broken promise. The vice president himself said that the war is what cost the Republicans the election. But it was more than just the war. Voters were tired of the whole act.

When Trump told his voters to imagine that he was on the ballot, it wasn’t just his supporters who made this election a referendum on Trump. So too did angry Democrats, disgusted independents and more than a few former MAGA minions.

They said this election was about affordability, but it really was about an undisciplined president who refused to colour inside the lines, who blundered into a costly war, who didn’t stop his administration from detaining and deporting high school baseball coaches and Uber drivers and domestic employees, and harboured too many white supremacists within his ranks.

He alienated women, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, African Americans and offended well-educated Midwesterners who couldn’t stomach his language or his antics any longer. The great MAGA coalition that he assembled for his historic 2024 victory dissipated in one election night, tired of the nonsense and wanting a change in direction.

Things are so bad for Republicans that they lost all kinds of members, from House leaders like Richard Hudson, to tremendously flawed MAGA warriors like Ken Paxton to seasoned and effective Appropriators like Susan Collins. Conservative Republicans lost. Traditional Republicans lost. Moderate Republicans lost. All kinds of Republicans lost. It is a total and complete rejection of the GOP, top to bottom. An unmitigated disaster.

There are two questions that remain. What will happen to the MAGA movement now? And can we ever return to the good old days before Trump made politics a blood sport more akin to Ultimate Fighting than to the World Wrestling Federation?

The answer is this: Unless Republicans fundamentally change how they communicate to voters and what they promise to do for them, they will not win another election. MAGA will be lost forever. Governing is about building coalitions, not about belittling potential allies with sophomoric attacks and needlessly partisan rhetoric.

Like Andrew Jackson, President Trump has forever changed American politics, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever completely return to the good old days of disagreeing without being disagreeable. But voters showed that they had grown tired of Mr. Trump’s brand of disagreeableness by delivering to the Democrats a huge political victory.

This election was not an endorsement of Democratic policies. It was a referendum on Trumpism and his caustic brand of politics. We will see if he got the message.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Since coming out of retirement before this season, Rams defensive lineman Aaron Donald adopted a humble approach, always allowing younger, less-accomplished players to go ahead of him during drills.

But on Thursday, the future Hall of Famer enthusiastically moved to the front of the line.

The Rams practiced scooping fumbled footballs off the turf.

“I needed that,” Donald said Thursday, chuckling. “Learn bending and getting down.”

Last Sunday against the Chargers, Donald missed the opportunity to score his first NFL touchdown when, with a clear shot to the end zone, he failed to come up with a fumble, albeit in hilarious fashion.

“I saw what he was thinking because it’s going right in front of you and he’s thinking, ‘I’m going to scoop and score,’” coach Sean McVay said after the game. “Then he knocks that … out of bounds. I mean, what the hell?

“His face, he couldn’t even look at me and make eye contact after that. But at least we can laugh about it right now.”

Donald was still laughing about it Thursday.

“I should have slowed down, but I felt people behind me and I’m like, ‘I’m going to get hit in my back. That’s going to hurt,’” he said. “So I tried to go full speed and scoop it. I thought the ball was going to bounce this way but it bounced that way, and it just looked all damn silly.

“Then I hit the ball out. I just laid down. ‘I can’t believe I just did that.’”

Donald was grinning throughout his session with reporters while replaying the missed opportunity — and the new opportunity on the horizon with edge rusher Myles Garrett back at practice.

McVay has not said whether Garrett will be activated from injured reserve and play for the first time since undergoing knee surgery after the season opener.

But Donald sounded as if that could happen Sunday when the Rams play the Washington Commanders in Landover, Md.

Donald did not play in the opener, so whenever Garrett returns would mark the first time the future Hall of Famers will play together.

“If Myles is 100% ready to go, and plays this week, that’s going to be amazing for us,” Donald said. “It’s always good when you have all the pieces of the puzzle.”

Donald, a three-time NFL defensive player of the year, and Garrett, a two-time winner, have a combined 236½ sacks. Last season with the Cleveland Browns, Garrett set an NFL season record with 23 sacks.

Donald has played in six games for a team that opened the season as the Super Bowl favorite but is 4-4 after its win over the Chargers.

Donald does not have a sack, but he has 12 tackles, three for losses.

Will Garrett’s return free Donald from double teams and other schemes?

“I’m pretty sure,” Donald said. “The guy did have 20-something sacks last year.”

Donald said the season has not gone as expected, but he is enjoying it.

“I’m enjoying the process, I’m enjoying myself week in and week out getting better, enjoying being out there with the guys,” he said. “And just playing this game.”

Etc.

The Rams activated kicker Joshua Karty to the roster from the practice squad and signed cornerback David Long to the practice squad. The Rams selected Long in the third round of the 2019 draft and he played three-plus seasons before stints with four other teams. … For the second day in a row, cornerback Trent McDuffie (back), tight end Colby Parkinson (ribs) and safety Kam Curl (foot) did not practice.

After Democrats delivered a once-in-a-generation midterm thumping of Republicans in the United States midterms, their current leader, Chuck Schumer, has expressed confidence he will helm his party’s larger-than-expected majority in the US Senate.

“I’ll be re-elected as majority leader,” the New York Democrat told reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

But as calls for change reached a fever pitch among voters in this week’s pivotal elections, not every newly elected Senate Democrat is open to the idea of having Schumer, a 75-year-old stalwart of the chamber, reprise his role as the head of their agenda.

At least seven incoming Democratic freshmen have publicly suggested – or said outright – they will not commit to supporting Schumer in next month’s leadership vote:

• Illinois Senator-elect Juliana Stratton, through a spokesperson, said she will not support Schumer.
• Kansas Senator-elect Adam Hamilton told CNN in September: “I’m not supporting Schumer”.
• Maine Senator-elect Troy Jackson said on Monday he told Schumer he will “support somebody else”.
• Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed reiterated in an interview with CNN on Thursday that he will support his soon-to-be Democratic colleague, Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, as leader.
• Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan told reporters on Wednesday, “It is time for new leadership”.
• New Hampshire Senator-elect Chris Pappas said in an interview last week that “voters are hungry for … a new generation of leadership in the Senate”.
• Texas Senator-elect James Talarico has called for “new blood” in Washington, and since being elected, has indicated he wanted to “hear about [Schumer’s] vision” for the Senate before committing to back him.

Jackson has openly questioned Schumer’s ability to connect with working-class voters, while Flanagan’s staff has said the senator-elect wants “a progressive champion” who will shepherd Democrats through the final two years of Donald Trump’s presidency and into 2028.

New members, like El-Sayed, may not be won over after Schumer backed the former public health official’s opponent, Haley Stevens, in Michigan’s Democratic primary.

Schumer, the first Jewish Senate leader, has often found himself at the centre of brewing cultural and foreign-policy debates within his party.

In remarks that were posted online in February, Schumer told Jewish leaders in New York City one of his core duties was “to fight for aid to Israel”.

“We delivered more security assistance to Israel, our ally, under my leadership than ever, ever before”, he said. “We will keep doing that.”

Schumer has also faced fierce criticism for not doing enough to block Trump’s cabinet members from being confirmed. Some have even chastised the leader for retreating during last year’s government shutdown after he backed a Republican bill to reopen federal agencies without getting anything in return.

Critics in his party, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, called that a “capitulation” that abandoned key Democratic priorities, like healthcare subsidies. Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said Schumer should have stepped down as leader over the matter.

The Democratic leader said on Wednesday the party’s new Senate plan would include launching investigations into the Trump administration, challenging the president’s agenda and ending his war in Iran.

However, that’s not good enough for some current members, like Van Hollen, who recently told Bloomberg that Democrats should not commit to Schumer without promises of a “bold agenda”.

Before Tuesday’s election, a senior campaign staff member for Senator Jon Ossoff, who was easily re-elected to his seat, would not say whether the Georgia Democrat would back Schumer.

“I do not have an answer,” the Ossoff source told Al Jazeera. “We can do all the fantasy football stuff later.”

When Democratic lawmakers return to Washington next week, voters and Democratic-aligned groups will likely pressure them to support an alternative candidate.

After calling for new leadership after the election, Indivisible, a progressive US-based organisation that bills itself as a movement “to stop the rise of authoritarianism”, released a memo on Thursday detailing their opposition to Schumer.

“Everyone with a Democratic senator – including those with newly-elected senators on their way to DC – should be demanding a contested leadership election, not a cleared field for Schumer”, the memo read.

“Any Democrat who is considering business as usual, or unwilling to fight at a level that matches the public’s demand for action – is not qualified to lead the party at this moment. Who leads the party in this era must be an open question, not a coronation. It’s time to define what the next era of the Democratic Party will be.”

Al Jazeera asked Schumer’s office how he plans to address those concerns and whether he is speaking with frustrated Democrats, but it has not yet responded.

To be re-elected, Schumer needs a simple majority of the Democratic Senate caucus, projected to comprise 54-56 members, and Schumer, who previously served as majority leader during the duration of former President Biden’s term in office, still has allies he can count on.

One of those is Democratic Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who told ABC on Wednesday that he commended Schumer’s handling of the midterms, saying he delivered “one of the most historic sweeps” for the party.

“We’re gonna have a family discussion,” Booker said. “But I think America should give … Chuck Schumer his due for what we were able to achieve.”

When asked Wednesday about building criticism of his leadership, Schumer demurred, saying Tuesday’s elections were “not about” him.

“This is about the American people and what they want and what they need and what we can do to help them. Plain and simple”.

Democrats rode a blue wave to victory in the United States midterm elections, winning control of both chambers of Congress. Now comes the question of whether they can deliver on their promises.

The party campaigned on bringing down the cost of living, ending the war on Iran and holding President Donald Trump accountable, as well as pushing back against his immigration crackdown.

But Democrats won’t take control of Congress until January. Even then, there’s only so much they’ll be able to do without Republican cooperation.

Most bills need 60 votes to get past a filibuster in the Senate, and even if Democrats manage that, Trump can still veto their legislation. He has already threatened to do just that, telling a podcast on Monday, “I’ll veto everything.”

But the Democrats now also have other tools at their disposal, including power over Senate confirmations and control over committees that can launch investigations.

So what can Democrats realistically accomplish over the next two years, and where might they struggle to make good on their promises?

Can Democrats bring down the cost of living?

Affordability was one of the biggest issues for voters heading into Tuesday’s midterm elections, and Democrats seized on that, promising to bring down the costs of energy, housing, healthcare and groceries.

Dean Baker, an economist and cofounder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a US-based think tank, said one of the most effective things Democrats can do to bring down costs is push for an end to the war on Iran.

Since February, the conflict has driven up energy prices, as Iran has restricted commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for the oil and gas trade.

Baker argued that Democrats could use congressional investigations and oversight to pressure the Trump administration to end the war, potentially helping to give consumers relief.

Foreign policy is an area where some Republicans could find common cause with Democrats, said Baker.

Another area, he added, might be healthcare, an issue that similarly hits voters in the pocketbook.

The expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies in 2025 has left many Americans facing higher insurance premiums.

With their new congressional majorities, Democrats could push to restore those subsidies and reverse cuts to Medicaid, the government healthcare programme for low-income Americans.

A possible path to accomplishing that goal would be to include those measures in government spending bills that Congress needs to pass, according to Baker. That would also make them harder for Trump to reject.

“Republicans living in a post-Trump world, I don’t think they want to be on the side of preventing people from getting healthcare or basically paying more for healthcare,” Baker said. “They can make the politics such that he doesn’t want to veto it.”

Trump’s tariff campaign is another factor driving up consumer costs. But Baker warned that they could be tougher to reverse, without substantial support from Republicans to override a Trump veto. Even if they do manage that, prices could take a while to actually drop.

“Prices are like rockets and feathers. They shoot up like rockets; they come down like feathers,” said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive economic think tank.

Jacquez, however, pointed to another path Democrats could take that wouldn’t need Trump’s approval.

With majorities in Congress, Democrats could wield congressional committees to investigate companies that have been raising the prices of everything from groceries to electricity bills.

“There’s a lot of precedent for getting some real material outcomes just through having the gavels and being able to subpoena CEOs and haul people in front of Congress,” Jacquez told Al Jazeera.

While there’s no guarantee these investigations would bring down prices, they could put pressure on companies to explain or adjust their decisions.

Could a Democratic Congress hold Trump accountable?

Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, expects Democrats to make extensive use of their new investigative powers.

“In terms of time spent and newspaper ink spilled, this is where you’re going to see the most action from Dems, by a mile,” she told Al Jazeera in an email.

Congressional investigations do not require White House approval. But they could make life harder for Trump by scrutinising his actions both within and outside of government.

Many Democrats have signalled they plan to investigate the source of the Trump family’s wealth as part of January’s incoming Congress.

Trump’s personal wealth has soared by about $2.2bn since the start of his term, according to financial disclosure forms released earlier this year.

His family’s business empire has likewise expanded over the last two years into everything from cryptocurrency and drones to artificial intelligence and prediction markets — industries his government has favoured in its policies.

Democratic senators have already been laying the groundwork for potential investigations, sending letters to companies and government departments demanding that they preserve records.

Among the issues they could examine are whether donors to Trump’s White House ballroom received favourable treatment from the government, and whether the Justice Department targeted his political opponents.

There is no guarantee, however, that everyone will cooperate.

Trump administration officials could challenge subpoenas in court, delaying investigations. But while Blessing doesn’t expect “Trump’s nuclear family to show up to a subpoena”, she said Democrats could still question government employees and others connected to Trump’s inner circle.

Even if they uncover wrongdoing, however, there is no guarantee of legal consequences, since it’s Trump’s own Justice Department that would have to decide whether to take up the cases.

Impeachment is another possibility. Lawmakers have already introduced articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for multiple reasons, including allegations that he waged war against Iran without seeking congressional approval first.

Republican Representative Thomas Massie has said he will try to force a House vote on Hegseth’s impeachment when the outgoing Congress returns to session next week.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term, however, dismissed the prospect of facing a third impeachment himself, telling reporters on Wednesday that he was “not even a little bit” worried.

“I think it would destroy the Democratic Party if they did that, because it would be impeachment for no reason,” he said.

Trump also defended Hegseth, saying he was doing “a very good job”.

Even if the House of Representatives votes to impeach a government official, the case must still be weighed in a Senate trial.

Removing an elected official would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate, meaning many Republicans would need to get on board to oust a figure like Trump or Hegseth. No president in US history has ever been removed from office as a result of an impeachment proceeding.

Could Democrats end the war on Iran?

With less than two months until the 120th Congress is sworn in, experts anticipate Trump will use his final weeks with the outgoing Republican majorities to push through any remaining legislative priorities.

It also leaves Trump a critical window in which to escalate the war on Iran, according to Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank.

“He has shown a pattern in which, in the face of humiliation and defeat, he becomes more reckless,” Parsi told Al Jazeera.

Democrats could pursue a binding resolution to wind down the war. After all, the US Constitution assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war, and laws like the War Powers Act of 1973 give lawmakers a path to ending unauthorised conflicts past the 60-day mark.

But there is no guarantee that those efforts would work, given the possibility of Trump vetoing their proposed measures.

Experts, however, say there is another way that Democrats could rein in Trump’s war powers. One of their most powerful tools will be control over government spending.

The Trump administration can continue using money already allocated for military operations, but Democrats could try to block additional funding for the war.

“It creates a limitation for how long he can pursue the war,” Parsi said. “If he needs more funding for it, we’re not talking about small sums that he can just reallocate from other places easily.”

With control of congressional committees, Democrats could also investigate the administration’s conduct during the war, including whether its military operations complied with US law.

“Rigorous oversight would not restrict military operations by itself but could raise the political costs of the war beyond what the president or other key officials are willing to endure,” said David Janovsky, a policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight.

How much political will Democrats have to end the conflict, however, is an open question.

Blessing, the government affairs fellow, noted that the party has historically been reluctant to withhold military funding out of fear of being accused of undermining US troops.

But Parsi warned that failing to act would be politically unsustainable — and could be seen by the party’s base as a tacit endorsement of US military involvement in the Middle East.

“It will no longer be just Trump’s war,” Parsi said. “They will also co-own it, because they will be complicit, because they have the ability to stop it.”

Could Democrats rein in Trump’s immigration crackdown?

Another target for the incoming Democrat-led Congress could be Trump’s hardline immigration crackdown.

His pledge to oversee the largest mass deportation in US history has sparked widespread public backlash. A public opinion poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of Americans believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has “gone too far” in its efforts.

With control of both chambers of Congress, Democrats could launch investigations into ICE and other agencies involved in the crackdown.

Their probes could seek information about conditions inside detention centres, allegations of abuse and how taxpayer dollars are being used for immigration enforcement, said Heidi Altman, the vice president of policy at the National Immigration Law Center.

Altman argues Congress could also claw back the roughly $240bn already given to the Trump administration for immigration enforcement over the past two years.

That amount of money, she explained, has allowed ICE to operate with few constraints, without having to prioritise which communities to go into or who to detain.

“The only way to force a slowdown and actual sort of decision-making and prioritisation and enforcement is to dramatically curtail their budget by taking back the funding from the last session,” she said.

Doing so would require passing legislation that Trump could eventually veto. But Altman argued that Democrats should push ahead anyway.

“The worst possible thing we could do is throw up our hands and say we have limited power,” she said.

“Pass the bills, see what happens, put them on the president’s desk, and dare him to look at the American people and say he’s not signing something that they overwhelmingly demanded.”

Democratic leader says party expects at least 255 House seats and promises to deliver on affordability.

Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries has celebrated his party’s sweeping victory in the United States midterm elections, calling the results an “American tsunami” as Democrats have taken control of both chambers of Congress.

“It wasn’t simply a blue wave. It was an American tsunami,” Jeffries said at a news conference on Wednesday, a day after Democrats pulled off upsets in several Republican strongholds.

Jeffries said Democrats expect to win at least 255 House seats once all vote counts are final, giving the party what he described as a historic majority.

“The American people have chosen common sense over corruption, chaos and cruelty,” he said.

Jeffries, who is set to become the first Black Speaker of the House when the new Congress takes office in January, said the results showed Americans wanted a change in direction.

“We’re humbled by the outcome,” he said, promising a “relentless effort to make life more affordable for everyday Americans”.

Speaking earlier on MS Now’s Morning Joe, Jeffries said Democrats would focus on getting things done rather than seeking revenge against President Donald Trump and his allies.

“We ran on affordability. We won on affordability. And now it’s our job to govern on affordability,” he said.

Democrats campaigned on bringing down the rising costs of groceries, petrol, housing and healthcare, which have left Americans feeling increasingly squeezed. But with Trump’s threats to use his presidential veto to block legislation he’s opposed to, Democrats may struggle to push through new laws even with a majority in Congress.

Jeffries pointed to a bipartisan housing affordability bill passed in July as an example of the types of legislation Democrats could pursue. The bill became law without Trump’s signature after he dismissed it as “a yawn” and “so unimportant”.

Jeffries also said Democrats would work to hold the Trump administration accountable for any wrongdoing, even as he acknowledged Americans wanted them to get things done, not “get even”.

“There’s a cost to corruption,” he said, adding that Democrats would follow the facts and the law, and “let the chips fall where they may”.

To understand the coming collision between President Donald Trump and a Democratic Congress, one must first discard the textbook formulas of US governance. The United States is about to witness a political experiment for which there is no modern precedent: a purely transactional populist, entirely unmoored from traditional ideological orthodoxy, forced to share power with a legislative branch unified in partisan hostility.

The conventional wisdom predicts immediate, paralysing gridlock. That is a misreading of the terrain. Trump does not view politics through the lens of conservative dogma or constitutional restraint; he views it through the lens of the deal. Consequently, his governance will not be characterised by passive stagnation, but by an aggressive, volatile mix of transactional bipartisanship and raw executive unilateralism.

Domestically, the ideological lines will blur. For decades, the Republican Party was defined by its commitment to limited government and free markets. Trump has spent a decade dismantling that consensus. Confronted with a Democratic House of Representatives and a Democratic Senate, he will feel no tribal loyalty to standard conservative policy. Instead, expect him to seek out areas of populist overlap.

When it comes to massive infrastructure spending, protectionist trade policy and aggressive state intervention to protect domestic manufacturing, Trump is often closer to the Democratic centre-left than to the ghost of former President Ronald Reagan. He will dare the opposition majorities to vote against legislation that pours millions of dollars into their districts or levies tariffs that protect their blue-collar constituents. It will be an unholy, ad hoc alliance — issue-by-issue, fleeting, and transactional — designed to deliver the optics of victory for both a populist president and a vulnerable congressional majority.

Where such transactions fail, however, the venue will shift from the legislative chamber to the administrative state controlled by the executive. Trump will not accept the traditional boundaries of a divided government. If necessary, he will govern by decree. Executive orders, emergency declarations and expansive interpretations of federal statutes will be deployed to bypass a stubborn Capitol Hill. The administration will dare the Democratic leadership to tie up the government in the federal courts, turning the slow wheels of the judiciary into a political weapon.

Yet, the true test of this fragile constitutional architecture will not occur on the domestic stage. It will happen abroad, specifically in the volatile expanses of the Middle East, where the executive branch enjoys its greatest constitutional latitude.

The immediate flashpoint is Iran. The Trump doctrine rests on a foundation of maximum economic pressure backed by highly unpredictable, asymmetric tactical deterrence. It is a posture designed to keep adversaries off balance. But a Democratic Congress, historically wedded to the framework of multilateral diplomacy and deeply wary of congressionally unauthorised foreign entanglements, will view this unpredictability not as a strategic asset but as an existential danger.

The US is likely headed for a historic constitutional showdown over the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Democratic majorities will also aggressively use the power of the purse to place statutory fences around the commander-in-chief, attempting to defund military manoeuvres or explicitly prohibit unilateral escalations against Tehran. Trump will treat these attempts at legislative constraints with open contempt. Asserting an absolute, almost unrestrained reading of the Constitution’s Article II executive authority, the president will argue that modern geopolitical threats require executive agility, not governance by congressional committee. When the rockets fly, the president will act unilaterally, leaving Congress to meaningless academic debates.

Hanging over this entire drama is the ultimate constitutional weapon: the threat of impeachment by Congress. In a Washington where both the House and the Senate are controlled by the president’s opponents, oversight will cease to be an instrument of governance and become an engine of partisan political destruction.

Democratic congressional committee chairs will launch a relentless, multifront campaign of subpoenas and investigations. Every member of Trump’s cabinet will live in a permanent state of interrogation; every foreign policy decision will be audited for high crimes and misdemeanours. The House will almost certainly draft articles of impeachment, not as an extraordinary remedy for rare misconduct, but as a routine penalty for political nonconformity.

Yet, this strategy carries severe risks for the opposition. Trump does not fear institutional warfare; he thrives on it. He will transform the spectacle of congressional investigations into the theatre of public grievance. To his base, a hostile Congress will be framed not as a coequal branch of government performing its constitutional duty, but as an illegitimate, obstructionist cabal subverting the will of the forgotten American voter.

Because the structural math of the Senate requires a two-thirds majority for removal of the president, actual eviction from the Oval Office remains a statistical fantasy. Impeachment will therefore achieve not displacement, but a permanent state of institutional friction.

What the US is about to enter is not two years of legislative inactivity, but a phase of perpetual brinkmanship. It will be an era in which governance occurs only in the narrow, volatile intervals between constitutional crises. The US system was built to withstand institutional tension, but it also requires a basic reverence for institutional boundaries to function. With a transactional populist president in the White House and an adversarial army on Capitol Hill, those boundaries will be tested as never before. The architecture will hold, but the foundation will shake.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

The District of Columbia (DC) and the state of Virginia have filed a joint lawsuit to halt the construction of a large triumphal arch sought by United States President Donald Trump.

Filed on Saturday, the lawsuit denounces the project as “flagrantly unlawful” and “legally indefensible”.

It calls on the federal court system to bar construction before it starts.

Otherwise, the lawsuit warns, Trump could claim that pausing construction already under way would pose a national security risk, as he has done with other controversial projects in the past.

“This is not the first time that Defendants have rushed to dramatically remake the District too quickly for courts to intervene,” the lawsuit reads. “This Court should not allow this effort to escape judicial scrutiny.”

Saturday’s complaint brings the total number of lawsuits against the arch to three.

Trump has championed the prospect of building a triumphal arch, similar to the Arc de Triomphe built in Paris during Napoleonic times.

Trump’s arch, however, is designed to stand 30 metres (100 feet) taller than the Statue of Liberty. It would tower from the Memorial Circle in Washington, DC, at 76 metres (250ft).

That colossal scale has prompted outrage, particularly from veterans’ groups who fear the arch would block views of Arlington National Cemetery, a hallowed military grave site.

White House officials maintain that ground could be broken as early as next week, on or around November 5.

On Friday, the administration unveiled a 106-page proposal for the arch to be a 12-storey megastructure, featuring a winged bronze statue of Lady Liberty lifting an eternal flame.

The arch would include two mezzanines and an observation deck with panoramic east-west views, as well as programme spaces, offices and a “fire command centre”.

Trump has previously said the arch would double as a military hub with snipers and drone capabilities.

Construction on the arch would also result in significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic to nearby roads.

In Saturday’s lawsuit, Attorneys General Brian Schwalb of Washington, DC, and Jay Jones of Virginia pointed to the project’s disruptive footprint as a major concern.

“As soon as defendants break ground on this project, they will inflict irreparable harm on both the District and Virginia,” the lawsuit said.

It warns that the anticipated three-year construction project will stymie commuter traffic, slow down emergency vehicles and generate significant pollution, including “stormwater runoff into the Potomac”.

The lawsuit calls on the court to force the Trump administration to get congressional authorisation before any construction can begin.

The new legal challenge comes on the heels of an October 8 filing by Arlington County, which was the first governmental body to mount a legal action against Trump’s planned monument.

In that lawsuit, the county’s governing board argued that the project would cause “significant harm” to its residents and likely require changes to nearby flight paths.

The first complaint came in February, when a group of Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian launched an effort to stop the arch.

District Judge Tanya Chutkan is overseeing that case, and she is weighing whether to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily freeze any construction plans while the court hears arguments.

At a hearing on Friday, Chutkan deferred an immediate ruling but signalled that she would be issuing a decision expeditiously.

She previously ordered the administration to give the court 48 hours’ notice before undertaking any activities related to the construction of the arch.

The monument has already received early approval from the US Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump.

An Icelandic web company, FlokiNET, has defended the data’s publication as satisfying a ‘legitimate’ public interest.

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has asked an Icelandic web hosting company to take down a site with information about tens of thousands of its employees.

On Thursday, the Icelandic company FlokiNET posted a letter it received from the cybersecurity firm ZeroFox, on behalf of DHS.

The letter accused FlokiNET of violating its terms of service by publishing a “stolen” employee dataset and asked it to “remove or disable” the information.

“The content is live and places more than 40,000 identifiable individuals at risk of harassment, stalking, and physical harm,” the letter said.

FlokiNET said the letter concerned one domain, icepi.cx, which has compiled information about employees from a range of DHS agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Those agencies have come under intense scrutiny since the start of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign in 2025.

But the Trump administration has often refused to identify DHS agents involved in specific operations, citing safety risks.

Though FlokiNET said it refused to comply with DHS’s request, it noted that the website’s registrar ultimately suspended the domain. The employee information has since moved to a different domain.

In a statement posted online, FlokiNET defended its decision not to remove the site.

“Federal officers carrying out an enforcement programme are not private individuals while they are carrying it out,” the company said. “The public has a legitimate interest in knowing who is doing that work, under whose authority, and in which office.”

The database was first posted online on Wednesday by Distributed Denial of Secrets (DDoSecrets), a group that showcases leaked government data.

In the past, DDoSecrets has released emails from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as information from the Israeli Ministry of Justice and police departments in the US.

A hacker group calling itself the “Department of Peace” has claimed responsibility for obtaining and sharing the DHS data.

Since the database was first published, other groups have spread the information elsewhere, including on sites like icepi.cx. As a result, the information is unlikely to be entirely scrubbed from the internet.

The Trump administration, however, has taken an aggressive approach to online platforms purporting to contain information about ICE employees and other agents involved in immigration operations.

Last year, for instance, the US Department of Justice pressured tech giants like Apple to remove apps that track ICE agents, including one called ICEBlock.

The move sparked backlash from Democrats and free-speech advocates, who argued that the public has a right to report on ICE’s movements.

“Blocking access to these apps at the request of the federal government raises the distinct possibility that Apple is working with government to violate its customers’ First Amendment right to record and report on the activities of their government,” Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin wrote in a letter last year, asking Apple to review its decision.

Immigration agents, meanwhile, have taken several steps to conceal their identities during operations, including wearing face masks or street clothes.

That lack of transparency has spurred criticism from human rights groups and immigration advocates, who argue that they have little recourse to pursue allegations of excessive force or impropriety during ICE raids.

Since Trump was sworn in for a second term, at least 25 people have faced gunfire from immigration agents. Six of the shootings have resulted in deaths.

Other cases have involved alleged violations of civil liberties – including unlawful arrests and racial profiling – as well as controversial tactics like car ramming and tackling.

The media reports come a day after Supreme Court ordered Bolsonaro hand over passport as part of money laundering probe.

A senior US State Department official has said that the Trump administration will issue visas to Brazilian Senator Flavio Bolsonaro and his family, allowing them to enter the US after news outlets reported that Bolsonaro had fled Brazil following his loss in the country’s presidential election.

The news came on Tuesday, one day after Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered Bolsonaro to turn over his passports as part of a probe into alleged money laundering. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing and said on Monday that he would stay in the country and lead the opposition.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who has previously accused members of the Bolsonaro family of courting US interference in Brazilian affairs for their political benefit, called the right-wing senator’s actions shameful.

“This is what the Bolsonaro family is like,” Lula said. “Brazil is their second nation, the US is their first.”

Bolsonaro, the son of former right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, initially refused to acknowledge the election results and said he would seek their annulment. His party released a statement on Monday saying it accepted the results of the election, which the conservative candidate lost by more than 4.4 million votes.

US President Donald Trump reacted by casting doubt on the election result, telling reporters it “looked like another rigged election”.

No evidence has emerged that the vote was marred by malfeasance. While critics seized on a last-minute decision to extend polling hours, Lula’s eventual victory was commanding, and the extension was unlikely to change the outcome.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Comey, who was fired during Trump’s first term, has been accused of unlawfully divulging national security information

James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), is facing a third set of criminal charges under the administration of United States President Donald Trump.

On Monday, sealed documents came to light showing that the Trump administration accused Comey of two counts related to the unlawful dissemination of “information related to national defence”.

Comey, a high-profile Trump critic, has not been indicted in the case. He has denied any wrongdoing.

But it is the third time the Trump administration has sought to level a criminal case against the former FBI director since the president returned to office in January 2025.

In a video on the online platform Substack, Comey once again denounced the Trump administration’s attempts to prosecute him as a campaign of political retribution.

“Well, now they’re back again. it would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to,” Comey said.

“Nothing’s changed with me. I’m still innocent, and I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.”

He also noted that Trump is only midway through his second term, and he hinted that he expects more criminal charges to come.

“The next couple years are going to be hard for all of us,” Comey added. “It’s really important that we stand straight and keep the faith in America.”

More details to come.