Supreme Court

Nov. 8 (UPI) — The federal government will extend its record-long close to 40 days after the Senate adjourned with no vote held on a possible budget deal on Saturday.

A small number of centrist Democratic Party senators have been negotiating with Republicans behind closed doors to try to craft a funding measure that would reopen the federal government, CNN reported.

They are making progress but said there disagreement remains over Democrats’ demand to extend Affordable Care Act credits that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

Senate Republicans are meeting at 12:30 p.m. EST on Sunday before resuming session.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., earlier said the Senate will work through the weekend to try to end the budget impasse and reopen the federal government, which shut down when the 2026 fiscal year started without a budget in place in Oct. 1.

Thune also said the Senate will continue to meet until a budget deal is approved.

The Senate was scheduled to be in recess around Veterans Day, which is Tuesday.

Instead, it convened after noon in a rare Saturday session, which was the fourth this year.

The last Sunday session was on Feb. 11, 2024, for a vote on emergency national security appropriations.

With the government closed for more than a month, around 900,000 workers are furloughed and another 700,000 are working without pay — a number that includes air traffic controllers, which has resulted in staffing issues and forced flight cancellations.

Food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was paused for this month, although the Supreme Court is set to decide a case on whether the Trump administration is legally required to fund the program.

The issue holding up an end to the shutdown is an extension of subsidies available for some Americans who purchase health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange. The ACA is also referred to as Obamacare.

Republicans want a clean funding bill with health insurance to be considered later, while Democrats want the government’s subsidies to be extended into next year as part of a funding bill.

A record 24.3 million have purchased insurance through one of the exchanges, with nine out of 10 receiving some sort of financial assistance.

Open enrollment began on Nov. 1 for most policyholders, one month after the shutdown began.

Rates will rise 26% on average next year, according to a KFF analysis — not including the end of the subsidies. In all, costs will more than double, according to a separate KFF analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Thune, of South Dakota, said both sides negotiated overnight on a possible short-term spending bill, while bipartisan negotiations also have been ongoing but not fruitful.

“I’m frustrated like everybody is,” GOP Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas told reporters on Saturday. “Every American is frustrated. Nobody wins in a shutdown, especially one that is this long.

Asked whether there could be a deal, he responded, “None. None at all. I’m almost speechless. What has not been said?”

Thune said a 15th vote on advancing the House-passed continuing resolution is not currently scheduled, but could come up later in the day.

In past votes, a few Democrats have approved the bill but 60 votes are needed. The Republicans have a 53-47 edge in the chamber.

“There’s still only one path out — it’s a clean funding extension,” Thune said on the Senate floor Saturday.

Senators have been told they will be given 24 hours to read the text of an agreement, a GOP aide told CNN.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told reporters that consensus has emerged in the Republican conference around a Jan. 30 funding end date.

GOP senators have pushed for the funding with the goal of including longer-term appropriations bills and extending the deadline for funding, in exchange for a future vote on healthcare.

“The question is whether we can have everything ready to go,” Thune told reporters. “We’re getting close to having it ready. Ideally, it’d be great to set it up so we could vote today, but we have to … have the votes to actually pass it.”

On Friday, Republicans shot down a Democratic push toward a deal featuring a one-year tax credit extension on health insurance. Thune said the tax extension would be considered after the shutdown ends.

“That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said Friday.

Minor Leader Chuck Schumer of New York criticized Republicans for rejecting the idea.

“Yesterday, we offered Republicans a perfectly reasonable compromise to get out of this horrible shutdown that they installed on the American people,” Schumer said on the House floor. “We offered three things: we all vote to reopen the government, we all approve a one-time temporary extension of current ACA premium tax credits, and then after we reopen we negotiate.”

“I know many Republicans stormed out the gate to dismiss this offer, but that’s a terrible mistake,” he added.

Schumer said it doesn’t need to be negotiated because the idea “is not a new policy, this is not negotiating a shutdown.”

Thune has been adamant that he can’t guarantee Democrats a tax extension process.

President Donald Trump, who is at his estate in South Florida, has been pressing to end the filibuster rule and instead have bills pass by a majority of the 100 senators. Most Republicans are opposed to this “nuclear” option, fearing Democrats will do that when they are in power.

“Democrats are cracking like dogs on the Shutdown because they are deathly afraid that I am making progress with the Republicans on TERMINATING THE FILIBUSTER!,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Saturday afternoon. “Whether we make a Deal or not, THE REPUBLICANS MUST ‘BLOW UP’ THE FILIBUSTER, AND APPROVE HUNDREDS OF LONG SOUGHT, BUT NEVER GOTTEN, POLICY WINS LIKE, AS JUST A SMALL EXAMPLE, VOTER ID (IDENTIFICATION). Only a LOSER would not agree to doing this!”

End Obamacare?

Trump also told Republicans to end Obamacare, something he has attempted to do since he first became president in 2017.

He called it the “worst Healthcare anywhere in the World.”

On Saturday morning in a post on Truth Social, he said money used for the program should be sent directly to the public instead of “money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare.

“In other words, take it from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people.”

Medicare, mainly for seniors, has Part A and B that don’t go through insurance companies and are run by the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an ally of Trump, touted the proposal.

“We’re not going to extend this program for a year because that would be unfair to the taxpayer,” Graham said on the Senate floor. “That would continue a healthcare system that’s out of control. It would enrich health insurance companies even more. We’re not going to do that. We’re going to replace this broken system with something that is actually better for the consumer to meet the goal of lowering health care costs.”

Graham said he spoke with Trump on Saturday morning and that the president told him he would “like to sit down and see if we can come up with a better solution. I know we can, but we’re not going to do it while the government’s shut down.”

Graham also urged Democrats to “end this madness.”

“To my Democratic colleagues, let’s open up the government and act like adults and see if we can get this problem in a better spot. We’ll never do it with the government shut down,” he said.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday night appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld a district judge’s order to pay full benefits in November to 42 million in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

A short time earlier, the 1st District Circuit left in place a decision on Thursday by Rhode Island federal Judge Jack McConnell, who ordered the administration to pay out the full benefits within one day, saying, “People have gone without for too long.”

The three-member appeals court’s decision means the U.S. Department of Agriculture must take steps to disperse the electronic payments, which are staggered each month. Earlier Friday, the agency said it notified states that it is working to process the payments.

The panel was Chief Appellate Judge David Barron, appointed by President Barack Obama, and Gustavo Atavo Gelpi Jr. and Julie Rikelman, both picked by President Joe Biden.

The judges said that they are still considering a bid for longer relief while assessing the appeal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X the Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to stay the Rhode Island-based lower court judge’s ruling, which she called “judicial activism at its worst.”

“A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for how scarce federal funds should be spent,” Bondi said.

Seven days ago, McDonnell and U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue. They were both nominated by Obama.

On Monday, the administration told the judge it only had reserved money to pay out 50% of the total $9 billion cost. Then, it was raised to 65%.

The judge directed USDA to find $4 billion “in the metaphorical couch cushions.”

McConnell said the administration could use Section 32 funds, which the USDA uses to help with child nutrition programs. But the administration rejected that plan.

In the appeal, DOJ claimed that the judge’s order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” Lawyers said transferring funds would mean diverting money from Child Nutrition Programs.

“Unfortunately, by injecting itself with its erroneous short-term solution, the district court has scrambled ongoing political negotiations, extending the shutdown and thus undercutting its own objective of ensuring adequate funding for SNAP and all other crucial safety-net programs,” they said.

Plaintiffs in the case, which are nonprofit organizations, asked for the full payment, and McConnell agreed.

“The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur” if SNAP is not fully funded, he said.

“While the president of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government’s actions tell a different story,” McConnell wrote in a written order.

The federal government has been shut down since Oct. 1, and the shutdown is now the longest in history.

In every past shutdown, emergency funds have been used to fund the program.

McConnell also mentioned a social media post that Trump made, saying he refused to release any more funds until “the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The post was used as evidence that the administration would ignore McConnell’s order.

WASHINGTON — Ahead of Tuesday’s election, when Americans weighed in at the ballot box for the first time since President Trump returned to office, a vicious fight emerged among the president’s most prominent supporters.

The head of the most influential conservative think tank in Washington found himself embroiled in controversy over his defense of Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and antisemite, whose rising profile and embrace on the right has become a phenomenon few in politics can ignore.

Fierce acrimony between Fuentes’ critics and acolytes dominated social media for days as a historically protracted government shutdown risked food security for millions of Americans. Despite the optics, Trump hosted a Halloween ball at his Mar-a-Lago estate themed around the extravagance of the Great Gatsby era.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman who rose to national fame for her promotion of conspiracy theories, took to legacy media outlets to warn that Republicans are failing the American people over fundamental political imperatives, calling on leadership to address the nation’s cost-of-living crisis and come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan.

And on Tuesday, as vote tallies came in, moderate Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia who had campaigned on economic bread-and-butter issues outperformed their polling — and Kamala Harris’ 2024 numbers against Trump in a majority of districts throughout their states.

The past year in politics has been dominated by a crisis within the Democratic Party over how to rebuild a winning coalition after Trump’s reelection. Now, just one year on, the Republican Party appears to be fracturing, as well, as it prepares for Trump’s departure from the national stage and the vacuum it will create in a party cast over 10 years in his image.

“Lame duck status is going to come even faster now,” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative commentator, wrote on social media as election results trickled in. “Trump cannot turn out the vote unless he is on the ballot, and that is never happening again.”

A post-Trump debate intensifies

Flying to Seoul last week on a tour of Asia, Trump was asked to respond to remarks from top congressional Republicans, including the House speaker and Senate majority leader, over his potential pursuit of a third term in office, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against it.

“I guess I’m not allowed to run,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “If you read it, it’s pretty clear, I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

Less than a year remains until the 2026 midterm elections when Democrats could take back partial control of Congress, crippling Trump’s ability to enact his agenda and encumbering his administration with investigations.

But a countdown to the midterms also means that Trump has precious time left before the 2028 presidential election begins in earnest, eclipsing the final two years of his presidency.

It’s a conversation already brewing on the right.

“The Republican Party is just a husk,” Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent conservative commentator who served as White House chief strategist in Trump’s first term, told Politico in an interview Wednesday. Bannon has advocated for Trump to challenge the constitutional rule on presidential term limits.

“When Trump is engaged, when Trump’s on the ballot, when Trump’s team can get out there and get low-propensity voters — because that’s the difference now in modern politics — when they can do it, they win,” Bannon said. “When he doesn’t do it, they don’t.”

Trump has already suggested his vice president, JD Vance, and secretary of State, Marco Rubio, will be top contenders to succeed him. But an extreme faction of his political coalition, aligned with Fuentes, is already disparaging them as globalists working at the whims of a baseless conspiracy of American Jews. Fuentes targeted Vance last week, in particular, over his weight, his marriage to a “brown” Indian woman, and his support for Israel.

“The infighting is stupid,” Vance said on Wednesday in a post on the election results, tying intraparty battles to Tuesday’s poor showing for the GOP.

“I care about my fellow citizens — particularly young Americans — being able to afford a decent life, I care about immigration and our sovereignty, and I care about establishing peace overseas so our resources can be focused at home,” he said, adding: “If you care about those things too, let’s work together.”

Democratic fractures remain

Some in Republican leadership saw a silver lining in an otherwise difficult night on Tuesday.

The success of Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist who will serve as the youngest and first Muslim mayor of New York City, “is the reason I’m optimistic” for next year’s midterms, House Speaker Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics on Wednesday.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks at Tuesday night’s victory celebration.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

“We will have a great example to point to in New York City,” Johnson said. “They’ve handed the keys to the kingdom to the Marxist. He will destroy it.”

Mamdani’s victory is a test for a weak and diffuse Democratic leadership still trying to steer the party in a unified direction, despite this week’s elections displaying just how big a tent Democratic voters have become.

Republicans like Trump know that labeling conventional Democratic politicians as socialists and communists is a political ploy. But Mamdani himself, they point out, describes his views as socialist, a toxic national brand that could hobble Democratic candidates across the country if Republicans succeed in casting New York’s mayor-elect as the Democrats’ future.

“After last night’s results, the decision facing all Americans could not be more clear — we have a choice between communism and common sense,” Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday. “As long as I’m in the White House, the United States is not going communist in any way, shape or form.”

In an interview with CNN shortly after Mamdani’s victory was called, Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader hoping to lead the party back into the majority next year, refused repeated questioning on whether Mamdani’s win might hurt Democratic prospects nationwide.

“This is the best they can come up with?” he said, adding: “We are going to win control of the House of Representatives.”

Bannon, too, warned that establishment Republicans could be mistaken in dismissing Mamdani’s populist appeal across party lines to Trump’s base of supporters. Mamdani, he noted, succeeded in driving out low-propensity voters in record numbers — a key to Trump’s success.

Tuesday’s election, he told Politico, “should be a wake-up call to the populist nationalist movement under President Trump that these are very serious people.”

“There should be even more than alarm bells,” he added. “There should be flashing red lights all over.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Will these six California GOP House members survive new districts?
The deep dive: Shakedown in Beverly Hills: High-stakes poker, arson and an alleged Israeli mobster
The L.A. Times Special: Toting a tambourine, she built L.A.’s first megachurch. Then she suddenly disappeared

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Thursday gave new life to President Trump’s bid to erase his hush money conviction, ordering a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state court instead of moving it to federal court.

A three-judge panel in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein erred by failing to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to move the New York case to federal court, where he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

But, the appeals court judges said, they “express no view” on how Hellerstein should rule.

Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, twice denied Trump’s requests to move the case. The first time was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment; the second followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts.

In the later ruling, at issue in Thursday’s decision, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the high burden of proof for changing jurisdiction and that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official actions that the Supreme Court ruled are immune from prosecution.

Hellerstein’s ruling, which echoed his previous denial, “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the hush money case into one that relates to official acts, the appeals court panel said.

The three judges said Hellerstein should closely review evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts.

If Hellerstein finds the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, the judges said, he should weigh whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

Ruling came after oral arguments in June

Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez made their ruling after hearing arguments in June, when they spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

Carney and Lohier were nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. Pérez was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim, said he did nothing wrong and has asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.

It was the only one of the Republican’s four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump team cites Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

In trying to move the hush money case to federal court, Trump’s lawyers argued that federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks that Trump wrote while he was president.

Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. He also said they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under that ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall told the three-judge panel in June. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

In addition to reining in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, called the president “a class of one,” telling the judges that “everything about this cries out for federal court.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment. Exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Hellerstein concluded that Trump hadn’t shown “good cause” to request a move to federal court as such a late stage. But the three-judge panel on Thursday said it “cannot be confident” that the judge “adequately considered issues” relevant to making that decision.

Wall, addressing the delay at oral arguments, said Trump’s team did not immediately seek to move the case to federal court because the defense was trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 4 (UPI) — As voters across the country headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats running in high-profile races are on track to be sent to governor’s mansions in New Jersey and Virginia and the mayor’s office in New York City.

New York City

Zohran Mamdani was poised Tuesday night to be the next mayor of New York City, besting former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a race that was closely watched nationwide, including by President Donald Trump.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old state lawmaker who ran as a democratic socialist, was projected to win the mayoral contest against Cuomo, who ran as an independent and with the last-minute backing of Trump, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the volunteer Guardian Angels crime prevention organization.

According to preliminary results from the city’s board of elections, Mamdani held 50.3% of the vote, representing more than 972,000 ballots cast. Cuomo was in second with 41.6% and Sliwa at third with 7.1%.

Mamdani claimed victory in a short video posted to X of a subway car coming to a stop at City Hall.

The race was largely a rematch of June’s Democratic primary where Mamdani beat Cuomo for the party’s nomination in a contest that was seen as a fight between the party’s progressive and establishment wings.

Mamdani’s platform included implementing a rent freeze, making bus transit free, offering free childcare for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years and raising the corporate tax rate while taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers at a flat 2%.

Cuomo ran on his extensive experience as a former governor of the state and prioritized improving public safety, including surging subway transit police. In contrast to Mamdani, Cuomo presented himself as a business-friendly centrist who could work with Trump, who injected himself late into the race.

Trump, who endorsed Cuomo Monday, has repeatedly called Mamdani a “communist” and said if he wins, “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds, other than the very minimum required, to my beloved first home.”

Virginia

Former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, claimed victory Tuesday night over Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears to become the commonwealth’s 75th governor and first woman to hold its highest office.

Speaking to supporters during an election night watch party in Richmond, Spanberger vowed to serve all Virginians, including those who did not vote for her.

“And that means I will listen to you, work for you and with you,” she said.

“That is the approach I have taken throughout my entire career. I have worked with anyone and everyone regardless of political party to deliver results to the people that I serve. And that is because I believe in this idea that there is so much more that unites us as Virginians and as Americans than divides us,” she said.

“And I know — I know in my heart — we can unite for Virginia’s future and we can set an example for the rest of the nation.”

According to preliminary state results, Spanberger received 56.3% of the vote share for 1.2 million ballots compared to Earle-Sears’ 43.2%, or roughly 968,100 votes, with 107 out of 133 localities reporting.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, was among the first to comment on Spanberger’s victory, telling Virginians that she “won’t let you down.”

“Tonight, Virginians came together to send a resounding message that folks are ready to stand up for our freedoms and fight for our future,” he said in a statement on X.

“In the face of all the chaos from Washington and the attacks on our democracy, Abigail Spanberger brought people together around a vision for a better, more affordable future for Virginia.”

Polls closed at 7 p.m. EST.

She will replace Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who was barred by Virginia’s unusual constitutional limit on governors being elected to consecutive terms.

Democrats are hoping a win by Spanberger will further cement Virginia’s blue state status ahead of next year’s midterm elections, ABC News reported.

“It is only in Virginia and New Jersey that we have statewide elections where we can prove to the rest of the country — when given, when we have an opportunity to make a change at home in our state, we will take it,” Spanberger said at a recent campaign rally.

“We know the stakes of this election, and we know what we are for. We are for a governor focused relentlessly on lower costs on housing, healthcare and energy.”

Trump, meanwhile, did not officially endorse Earle-Sears, but on Monday he urged Virginia Republicans to show up to the polls, according to The Washington Post.

“Get out and vote for these unbelievably great Republican candidates up and down the line,” he said in a telephone call with supporters.

If elected, Earle-Sears would have been the first Black woman to serve as governor in any state.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, claimed victory in a race against Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who ran in his third bid for governor.

Sherrill, speaking to supporters in East Brunswick, said her opponent conceded defeat.

“This was a tough fight and this is a tough state, but I know you, New Jersey, and I love you,” she said during her victory speech.

“I fought for you, I’ve spoken with thousands of you over the last year. I know your struggles, your hopes, I know your dreams. So serving you is worth any tough fight I have to take on and I’m incredibly honored to be your next governor.”

The traditionally blue state had a larger share of red voters than typical in the 2024 election, and Trump lost the state by 6 points, down significantly from the nearly 16 points he lost by in 2020.

Trump endorsed Ciattarelli, but didn’t campaign for him in person. Trump did take part in a telephone rally on Monday night, MSNBC reported. He also put his weight behind the Republican in multiple Truth Social posts, including one geared toward Lakewood, N.J.’s Orthodox Jewish population on Sunday.

“Your votes in this Election will save New Jersey, a State that is near and dear to my heart,” Trump wrote, saying they “will rue the day” they voted for Sherrill.

Hours into voting Tuesday, officials shut down polling stations throughout New Jersey and moved voting to new election sites after receiving bomb threats via email. Law enforcement said the threats involving polling places in Bergen, Essex, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Passaic Counties were not credible.

Former President Barack Obama, meanwhile, campaigned in support of Sherrill, speaking at a rally in Newark on Saturday.

“If you meet this moment, if you believe change can happen, you will not just elect Mikie Sherrill as your next governor, you will not just put New Jersey on a brighter path, you will set a glorious example for this nation,” he said, according to the New Jersey Monitor.

Ballot measures

On the West Coast, Californians voted for what could be the most consequential ballot measure this year as they decide whether to adopt a new congressional map that is designed to give Democrats an edge in the midterm election. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed the redistricting in retaliation to a new electoral map in Texas that favors Republicans.

Proposition 50 would redraw the congressional map to make five districts more Democratic-leaning, potentially neutralizing the effects of the new Texas map. Democrats across the country, including Obama, have supported Newsom’s plan as a way to counter Republican gerrymandering in predominantly red states.

“We have a chance at least to create a level playing field in the upcoming midterm elections,” Obama told Prop 50 supporters on a campaign call.

California Republicans, however, accused Democrats, themselves, of gerrymandering, with U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley calling it a “plague on democracy,” according to ABC News.

“I think it takes power away from voters, undermines the fairness of elections and degrades representative government,” he said.

Other key races

Pennsylvania voters will vote on whether to retain three Democratic justices on the state supreme court for new 10-year terms. The court’s 5-2 Democratic majority could be at stake.

Voters in the Houston area will vote in a special election to fill the U.S. House seat for Texas’ 18th Congressional District. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee died in 2024 and the winner of the seat in the 2024 general election, former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, died three months into office.

Tuesday’s race is a primary, which will eventually go into a runoff.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 (UPI) — Farmers for Free Trade, a nonprofit group that advocates for lower tariffs and expanded global market access, wrapped up its “Motorcade for Trade” tour Tuesday in Washington to urge policymakers to ease trade tensions and support struggling producers.

Dozens of farmers joined at different points along the route to participate in town halls and farm stops, contributing to discussions on trade priorities, export markets and challenges.

The organization has prioritized five issues, including tariff reductions, exemptions for agricultural necessities, such as fertilizer and equipment, and a timely review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The caravan began Sept. 5 in Dorchester, Neb., with a cooperative event between farmers and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb. The next three stops included sessions with Reps. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, and Jim Baird, R-Ind.

Although the Farmers for Free Trade team did not live in its RV, the group named it Ruth after driving more than 2,800 miles with it, spending many hours inside planning and being interviewed with their furry companion, a dog named Huckleberry.

“It’s really about getting information from farmers throughout the Midwest to understand what impact the administration’s trade and tariff policies have had on individuals,” said Brent Bible, an Indiana grain farmer. “It’s had an individual impact, not just on producers, but on communities throughout rural America,”

The caravan made 10 stops — in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

“We hosted events throughout the Midwest — everything from meetings with members of Congress to farmer roundtables and tariff town halls,” said Brian Kuehl, the Farmers for Free Trade executive director.

Between the fourth and fifth stop, Kuehl said, it became increasingly difficult to set a schedule.

“Our No. 1 one priority was to meet with members of Congress, and a lot of times you wouldn’t know their schedule until a few days in advance. Then, in the middle of the tour, we had the government shutdown. A bunch of members we had events with canceled because they had to be in D.C.,” Kuehl said.

His team then pivoted to hosting listening sessions and trade talks with farmers, along with visiting the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin and various farms.

Despite some adjustments, Kuehl shared his team’s optimism for the tour.

“One of the things that’s so cool about agriculture is how diverse it is throughout the United States,” he said. “In the Midwest, you’re looking at soybean and corn farms. As we moved east, we saw more dairies and hog farms. We even visited a winery in Pennsylvania. Pretty much the trade disruptions are impacting them all negatively.”

In Indiana, Bible said, “Our input costs have gone up dramatically because of tariffs on imports — fertilizer, equipment, steel, aluminum. If we need a replacement part or a new tractor, all of those things are impacted. We’re getting squeezed at both ends, and when that happens, there’s nothing left in the middle.”

In Ohio, corn, soy and cattle farmer Chris Gibbs said, he’s felt that squeeze firsthand. After more than 40 years in agriculture, he described 2025 as “a cash flow and working capital crisis,” noting that he’s paying well above production costs for major crops.

“We’re about $200 per acre under the cost of production for corn and about $100 under for soybeans,” Gibbs said.

Because of the shutdown — now the longest in history — the U.S. Department of Agriculture “is essentially not functioning,” Gibbs said. “They normally release reporting information that the market relies on, but that hasn’t been occurring. Farmers are having to make major business decisions without the data we depend on.”

Gibbs added: “I’ve been farming almost 50 years, and I’m struggling, If I’m having to move money around just to stay afloat, what happens to the young farmers who don’t have savings yet? They’re hanging on by a thread.”

Farmers strategically planned the finale of their motorcade to be in Washington this week in alignment with the Supreme Court of the United States’ schedule. The high court plans to hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Donald Trump to impose tariffs to the extent he has.

“We’re in a commodity business,” Bible said. “If we have a truly free, functioning market, we can be competitive. But that hasn’t been the case. Prices have been artificially manipulated by policy decisions and retaliation from other countries.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

SACRAMENTO — While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.