trump

NEW YORK — New York appeals judges grilled President Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors Thursday about his bid to erase his historic hush money conviction, but the court didn’t signal how or when it would rule.

The judges delved into legal theory, presidential immunity and some evidence in Trump’s 2024 trial. Convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, Trump denies any wrongdoing. He has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.

Trump, who denounced the case on social media as recently as September, didn’t attend Thursday’s court session.

Much of the back-and-forth focused on prosecutors’ theory that the hush money was meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate before the 2016 vote, and that it amounted to an illegal campaign contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the judges that Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s office has no place tying a case to a federal election law.

“We think it’s the most obvious ground for reversal,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that they weren’t prosecuting an alleged federal campaign finance offense, but rather presenting it as a factor underlying what they claim was a Trump-orchestrated conspiracy.

“So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records [charge]?” Justice Troy Webber asked.

“Only partially,” replied Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, adding that it was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy.”

Judges drill down on question about White House conversations

The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House workflow and conversations — some with then-Communications Director Hope Hicks — and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.

“Ms. Hicks was serving as a White House official,” talking with the president about how to respond to press inquiries that implicitly concerned his fitness for office, Giuffra told the appeals judges.

Wu countered later: “In this conversation, they were not speaking about a press response. … The president was talking to her about his private opinion.”

The appeals judges pressed both sides about the matter and the specifics of Hicks’ testimony. She told jurors that she asked Trump how he wanted to respond, but as for what he said, she testified only that he expressed relief that the Daniels story hadn’t emerged during the campaign.

Bragg’s office contends that all the White House-related evidence was fair game. The conversations were “unofficial conduct,” some of the other evidence was public record, and some was a general description of office practices, prosecutors say. They maintain that even if some of the evidence should have been excluded, its admission was a “harmless error” that doesn’t warrant overturning a conviction that rested on “a mountain” of other proof against Trump.

Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke wondered aloud about that.

“If you take all of those things cumulatively, right, and there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence, at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” she asked.

“It would have to be a lot more than there was in this case,” Wu responded.

Trump’s lawyers also have argued the case was political

While the appeal turns on complex legal disputes, political overtones aren’t hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team’s court filings contended that the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president’s own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.

The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. Though historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.

The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump’s then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.

Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump’s behalf wasn’t hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.

The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn’t a felony unless it’s done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.

While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments set for Nov. 16.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, a California attorney who radically reshaped the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to focus on political issues important to President Trump — including by targeting transgender rights and launching a nationwide hunt for alleged voter fraud by noncitizens — resigned her post Thursday.

In a resignation letter and in a post to X — where she routinely lambasted liberal policy and touted her office’s legal work to dismantle it — Dhillon said serving as the division’s chief was an honor.

“We ushered in the downfall of illegal DEI, we fought to protect women and girls’ sports, and so much more,” she wrote on X. “I want to thank President Trump for giving me this opportunity. I look forward to what’s next!”

Critics of Dhillon — including prominent civil rights leaders who had opposed her confirmation to the post — cheered her departure, saying she had flipped the storied Civil Rights Division on its head by attacking pillars of its past work, such as affirmative action policies, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, LGBTQ+ rights and voting rights.

“Is Harmeet running from a sinking ship? Trying to avoid actual oversight? Or getting pushed out by DOJ leadership?” Vanita Gupta, who headed the Civil Rights Division under President Obama, said in a text message. “Maybe it’s all of the above but regardless, she used the Civil Rights Division against the very communities and values it was founded to protect and that will be her legacy.”

Another part of her legacy, Gupta said, will be that she “oversaw the decimation of the Division’s incredible career workforce.” Many career civil rights attorneys left the department after she took over and demanded an ideological shift in the work.

Dhillon’s departure comes two days after a midterm election in which Republicans suffered sweeping losses, and amid widespread speculation as to how Trump and other leaders in his administration would respond — and who among them, if any, would leave or be unceremoniously ousted. Turnover after such an electoral drubbing is not uncommon.

In her resignation letter, Dhillon said she initially resigned in October, but that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles asked her to stay on until after the midterms. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that Dhillon did “a fantastic job … boldly protecting Americans’ civil liberties.”

Dhillon also touted what she called “historic victories for the American people” under her leadership, and specifically cited her work ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, suing states including California over their policies for transgender students and athletes and for their voter rolls, defending gun rights and fighting anti-Semitism.

Dhillon’s success in those initiatives was middling at best — and in some areas disastrous. Out of dozens of lawsuits demanding states turn over their voter rolls, for instance, she had zero wins.

Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on X, wrote that Dhillon “has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor,” and that the department “is grateful for her dedicated public service” and wished her “every success in her future endeavors.”

A spokesperson for Dhillon said she was returning to her firm, the Dhillon Law Group.

Mark Trammell, the chief executive of the conservative Center for American Liberty — which Dhillon founded — praised her work in the Justice Department as “advancing civil rights for all Americans.”

Others expressed stridently different feelings about her tenure.

Stacey Young, executive director of Justice Connection, a nonprofit organization of former Justice Department employees that advocates for a non-politicized department, blasted Dhillon’s tenure in the department and cheered her departure.

“Harmeet Dhillon has been the most destructive, lawless, and hateful head of the Civil Rights Division in DOJ history,” Young said in a statement. “After she upended the division’s mission-critical work, the civil servants who dedicated their careers to protecting vulnerable communities were instead told to target them — and more than three-quarters of the division’s lawyers left.”

Dhillon turned away from the division’s traditional role of investigating problematic police departments and rebuffed calls for federal civil rights investigations into the killing by immigration agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. She later relented amid intense public pressure to launch an investigation into Pretti’s killing, but was criticized for assigning inexperienced staff and not taking the inquiry seriously.

Dhillon also helped dismantle long-standing firewalls between the Justice Department and the White House, acknowledging that she saw her mission as pursuing civil rights in line with Trump’s executive orders.

She focused on targeting universities accused of discriminating against white and Asian students, attacking policies protecting transgender students and athletes in California and elsewhere, and launching her failed nationwide effort to obtain state voter rolls in order to root out alleged noncitizen voters.

She also took a leading role in threatening election workers processing ballots in the midterms.

As of Thursday morning, Dhillon still had pinned to the top of her X account a post from July, in which she discussed sending letters to elections officials in all 50 states warning them that it is a crime to knowingly process ballots from noncitizens.

“Every state and local election official is on notice — knowingly encouraging noncitizens to vote or conspiring to fraudulently register noncitizens is a federal crime,” she wrote.

Before being appointed to the Justice Department, Dhillon had made a name for herself in California by attacking transgender rights and challenging COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and voting rights initiatives.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, asked about Dhillon’s departure, said, “Good riddance.”

“Few people have done more to undermine U.S. DOJ’s civil rights legacy than Harmeet Dhillon — undermining free and fair elections, subverting anti-discrimination laws, and targeting marginalized communities,” Bonta said — efforts he said his office helped thwart in court.

Brian Levin, a professor emeritus of Cal State San Bernardino and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, said Dhillon’s tenure atop the Civil Rights Division “was nothing short of an unmitigated catastrophe” compared with the division’s work under past Republican and Democratic administrations.

Levin said Dhillon ignored data showing discrimination against “the very vulnerable communities for whom the Civil Rights Division” was created to help to instead focus on things like “anti-white discrimination” and gun rights — overseeing “a complete abdication of protecting voting rights, housing and a slew of other projects that have been the foundation of what the division was founded to do.”

Levin said that “among these vulnerable communities that need the help the most that she has turned her back on have been the gay community, the trans community, immigrants, racial minorities, as well as the disabled,” and accused Dhillon of having “butchered” the division’s career staff and replaced it with people who “were vastly underqualified.”

“She was horrible, and anyone who cares about the preservation of civil rights, … and those who are the most vulnerable in our society, while not rejoicing today, can at least take some solace that the hemorrhaging will at least temporarily stop,” Levin said.

Young, of the Justice Connection, called on the next Senate — which will have a Democratic majority thanks to Tuesday’s elections — to exercise its confirmation powers to ensure Dhillon’s successor atop the Civil Rights Division fulfills its “congressional mandate to enforce all Americans’ civil rights diligently and fairly.”

Call comes as Iraq’s foreign minister urges armed groups not to join any Iranian retaliation, warning it would be disastrous for Iraq.

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi has told the United States that Baghdad will not let its territory be used to attack neighbouring countries, as his foreign minister warned that a new war on Iran would be a “disaster” for Iraq.

Al-Zaidi spoke to US President Donald Trump over the phone on Thursday, according to his office, as diplomatic efforts intensify to avert renewed US attacks on Iran.

The two men “discussed the evolving situation in the region, security developments, and prospects for the next phase”, al-Zaidi’s office said.

The prime minister reaffirmed Iraq’s call “for respect for the sovereignty of states and for Iraqi territory not to be used as a launching point for attacks against neighbouring countries”, it added.

He also stressed the need for diplomacy and dialogue to safeguard the region’s security and stability, it said.

Iraq, which neighbours Iran, has struggled to maintain a balancing act between US and Iranian interests since Trump launched the war on Iran in February.

Since taking office in May, al-Zaidi has prioritised the disarmament of all fighter groups in the country, including several powerful pro-Iran groups that have launched attacks in support of Iran across the region during the war.

Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein told Dijlah TV on Thursday that the potential of renewed US military attacks against Iran is “not a secret” and warned Iraqi armed groups against joining in any Iranian retaliation.

“Pushing Iraqi society into the war will lead to a disaster,” he said. “We are not prepared for war. Neither Iraqi society nor the armed forces are prepared for war.”

Hussein said Iraq had been turned into a battlefield after the US struck Iran, with the country coming under attack from both the US and Iran, as well as from armed groups inside Iraq.

“We are not part of any axis, and we do not want to let the Iraqi arena be turned into a battlefield,” he said. “We have good relations with the US and with our neighbour Iran… We need a clear policy that we are not a part of the war, and we do not want to be a part of the war.”

Since the war began, Iraq has lost more than $60bn in oil revenues, as about 90 percent of its oil exports normally pass through the Strait of Hormuz and were largely cut off when Tehran closed the waterway.

Oil accounts for about 90 percent of Iraq’s federal budget.

Since then, Iraq has been one of the few countries that have been granted exemption by Iran to pass freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

Though the US president said a deal was ‘very close’, he gave no specifics and did not meet a visiting Ukrainian delegation.

US President Donald Trump has said that a deal between Russia and Ukraine may be imminent, following a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, at the White House.

“I think we’re going to be very close to settling Russia-Ukraine,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, while declining to disclose details of his conversation with Dmitriev.

“There’s going to be an agreement. It’s going to be a big agreement, and it’s going to involve more than Ukraine,” Trump said, adding that the effort could include “all of Europe”.

Trump has frequently predicted that an agreement to end Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II was close. Negotiations have, however, picked up in recent weeks.

Trump said he did not meet the Ukrainian delegation on Thursday.

The meeting between the US president and Dmitriev came after a diplomatic gathering hosted by First Lady Melania Trump, which brought Russian and Ukrainian representatives together to mark and build on the localised six-day truce she helped broker in the southern Ukrainian city of Oleshky in October. The US president did not attend the event.

The temporary ceasefire ran from October 27 to November 1 and allowed for the evacuation of nearly 800 civilians from the besieged, Russian-occupied city of Oleshky in Ukraine’s Kherson region, as well as the delivery of critical food and medical supplies.

Senior officials from both countries attended on Thursday, including Dmitriev; Yana Lantratova, Russia’s human rights commissioner; David Arakhamia, leader of the Servant of the People party in Ukraine’s parliament; and Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine’s parliamentary human rights commissioner.

Melania Trump also spoke at the event, which the White House described as “the first time in American history that a First Lady has personally brought representatives of two nations at war to the White House for diplomacy”.

“Together, we can create something more enduring than a temporary ceasefire,” she said, urging both sides to see the humanitarian truce in Oleshky “as a spark in a world of darkness”.

The first lady presented Putin’s and Zelenskyy’s representatives with large white envelopes and asked them to deliver her personal letters to each leader. Dmitriev presented her with a painting by an 11-year-old girl, while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sent her the Order of Princess Olga, a Ukrainian award recognising her role in the ceasefire.

WASHINGTON — A federal panel was expected Thursday to approve President Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington at the end of a meeting that drew dozens of opponents to a key part of the president’s push to leave his imprint on the nation’s capital.

The approval would clear a hurdle on the road to breaking ground on the project, and the administration has said it could launch construction within a day of the vote. But the proposed 250-foot tall gilded arch still faced legal challenges.

The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition to Paoletta, the arch received support during the hearing from Republican lawmakers and a veteran who praised the administration’s efforts to build the monument.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

Trump is working to remake Washington

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sight lines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.

But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.

Trump wants an arch, but it faces legal challenges

Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Oct. 31, with what she said appeared to be no authorization from the National Park Service.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.

Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.

In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”

Administration lawyer Robert Stander said the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday signed a proclamation that he said will prevent future changes to the Oval Office and Cabinet Room as he has redesigned them.

“We’re making it a national monument and it will not be allowed to be touched by anybody,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

Trump’s proclamation signing comes two days after voters, dissatisfied with his economic policies, threw dozens of Republicans out of office, delivering control of Congress to Democrats.

It’s also the third day this week in which the president, a real estate mogul, delivered remarks fixated on his pet projects in Washington, D.C., including an opulent ballroom and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has overseen numerous design changes to various rooms, including the Oval Office, where he has filled the wall space with portraits, a copy of the Declaration of Independence and numerous golden accents.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

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”.

Nov. 5, 2026 10 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration held secret talks with Iran on deporting Iranians even as the war there dragged on, court documents obtained by The Associated Press show.

The court documents unsealed Thursday show the Republican administration as recently as mid-October said it had plans to deport the Iranians through an unnamed third country, although it was unclear when it intended to do so. The judge in the case ordered the government to give the court 24-hour notice of any finalized plans to deport Iranians to Iran or to any other country and five days’ written notice before any such deportation is carried out.

The documents show that the administration maintained contacts with Iranian officials during the war over the removals, specifically for submitting travel documents and figuring out “possible avenues for removal.”

“We are at war with a country where the President of the United States has said, as recently as two or three days ago, if not yesterday, that it is essentially lawless … A country that is an enemy of the United States, according to the current president. A country that, according to our president, murdered tens of thousands of protestors,” Judge Ana Reyes said according to the Oct. 15 transcript.

“And what you’re telling me is that the United States of America is going to send individuals back to that region, facing what you and I and everyone who would ever look at this would know would be, at a minimum, a serious threat of certain death.”

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department attorney Dimitar Georgiev-Remmel said. “The government is executing lawful orders of removal.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The development emerged from an ongoing lawsuit that alleges the Trump administration’s immigration agencies have been sharing confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government, violating national immigration regulations and endangering countless Iranians, court filings argue.

The new court documents show the coordination continued during the war.

The lawsuit depicts a coordinated campaign between the U.S. and Iranian governments to identify Iranians in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and pressure them to return to Iran — a marked departure from decades of diplomatic hostility between the two governments and an ongoing war. DHS has denied that it is sharing asylum application records with the Iranian government.

Hundreds of emails exchanged between U.S. immigration officials exposed how the two countries worked together to arrange for more than 100 Iranians to be flown back to Iran on three immigration flights in September and December 2025 and January 2026.

Deportations of Iranians back to their home country are historically rare, owing to the lack of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran and the possible persecution they could face if they were sent to Iran.

But under the Trump administration, ICE has aggressively pushed to deport people even from countries that have typically been reluctant to take people back or with whom the U.S. has had icy or no diplomatic relations.

Sometimes that has meant sending people back to their home country but it has also meant deporting people to other countries that they have no connection with.

The Trump administration has deported people, including Iranians, to countries other than their own in an attempt to circumvent diplomatic hurdles with governments that won’t take their people back. During Trump’s second term, countries including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and across Africa have accepted noncitizens from the U.S.

In June, an Iranian woman was among the two dozen migrants the U.S. deported to the Central African Republic.

Activists abroad have expressed concern about deportees returning to Iran, whose theocracy has been cracking down on intellectuals and where the government vociferously cracks down on any dissent.

Kunzelman and Santana write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Corruption topped the list of concerns for voters who ousted Republicans and handed Democrats control of Congress in the midterm elections. Now, the newly empowered Democratic Party is putting the issue front and center as its leaders chart their course for investigations and policymaking.

Senior Democrats in both chambers of Congress have vowed to marshal the subpoena powers and larger investigative staffs that come with their soon-to-be majorities to probe what they say is the self-enrichment that President Donald Trump and people in his orbit have done at the public’s expense. The Republican president and his White House have long denied any wrongdoing.

House Democrats are preparing a vast oversight agenda to look at how Trump and his family have become wealthier since he returned to office — and Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who’s in line to become House speaker, has not ruled out trying to impeach Trump for a third time.

Months ago, Jeffries tasked the ranking Democrats on the Oversight and Judiciary committees, Rep. Robert Garcia of California and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, with leading the effort, as Democrats work to link the costs of public corruption to the affordability concerns hitting Americans’ pocketbooks.

“Lawyer up,” Garcia posted on X as election results favoring Democrats began coming in on Tuesday night.

The Senate is expected to conduct similar investigations.

“Americans want us to clean up corruption in government,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who is poised to return as Senate majority leader next year. “No American should have to make tradeoffs at the supermarket while Trump is making inside trades on the stock market.”

Investigation targets could include ICE raids, Epstein and DOGE

Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has outlined five priorities, including Trump family business dealings, the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, said he wants to dig into Trump’s White House ballroom and other construction projects, as well as the Trump family’s role in mineral deals.

With the House majority comes an infusion of congressional committee staff and resources, and the effort is expected to be sprawling, involving House committees with authority to conduct oversight on Cabinet officials and the agencies they lead.

In the Senate, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who is expected to become the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said his panel will want to look into Trump’s real estate projects around the nation’s capital and his crypto dealings with special envoy Steve Witkoff. Witkoff is a longtime ally who partnered with Trump on the president’s family cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial.

“The tentacles of corruption reach deep in this administration, and they have added costs to everyday Americans,” Blumenthal said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. The senator added that he also wants hearings on ICE raids, the actions of the Department of Government Efficiency and Medicare plans he says are too restrictive and have cost some patients care.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who is in line to become Senate Finance Committee chairman, ticked off several investigative targets that he describes as part of an “accountability” agenda, including banks that he contends ignored red flags about the financial dealings of Epstein and pharmaceutical companies that have profited from their ties to the Trump administration.

“When I am chair, they will be forced to answer to the Senate Finance Committee for their role in hurting the American people and enabling Trump’s corruption,” Wyden said in a statement Wednesday.

The issue of corruption resonated for voters, The AP Voter Poll shows

Many U.S. voters in Tuesday’s elections expressed deep concerns about government corruption and the state of democracy, according to The AP Voter Poll, which surveyed more than 100,000 voters nationwide.

While roughly 4 in 10 voters said the economy was the top issue facing the country, about 3 in 10 said that “the state of democracy” was the top issue. About half of U.S. voters said government corruption was “crucial” to their vote for Congress, and most of those voters supported the Democratic candidate in their local U.S. House race, while about one-third said they voted for the Republican.

About 8 in 10 voters who said “the state of democracy” was the top issue facing the country supported the Democrat, while about 2 in 10 supported the Republican.

Older voters, those age 65 or older, were more likely than voters under 65 to say “the state of democracy” was the most important issue facing the country. About 4 in 10 older voters pointed to this as the nation’s top problem, compared with about 3 in 10 who said the economy. That view was reversed with younger voters, who were more likely to call the economy the top issue.

That explains why anti-corruption played such a central role in Democratic campaigns this cycle, with candidates accusing their Republican opponents of looking out for themselves or their donors rather than a broader constituency. They embraced stock trading bans and bans on former members of Congress becoming lobbyists and promised to be part of an effort to root out corruption.

Democrats’ challenge: Focusing on corruption without ignoring cost-of-living issues

In his public comments since his party lost the elections, Trump has taken a conciliatory tone toward Democrats, conceding that they “did a good job” in their campaigns as he’s tried to skirt personal blame for the GOP’s midterm thrashing. That could change as investigations ramp up.

“As the president has said, he’s willing to work with anyone to continue delivering victories for hardworking Americans,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said Wednesday. “If Democrats choose to pursue sham investigations and radical left policies, they are choosing to work against the American people.”

Schumer insisted that congressional Democrats will be able to balance legislating on key issues, such as affordability, while launching investigations to target “rampant corruption.”

In a letter to Democratic lawmakers announcing his candidacy for House speaker, Jeffries said the “days of the House functioning like a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump administration are over.”

“The massive corruption the country has experienced from the Trump Cartel explains why very little is getting done to help everyday Americans,” Jeffries wrote as he promised to target price gouging and push for a stock trading ban for lawmakers. “That changes immediately.”

The challenge for Democrats will be to continue to tie corruption to the affordability issues that topped the list of concerns for voters.

The Congressional Integrity Project, an advocacy group initially created to combat Republican investigations into President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, is now shifting its focus to help Democratic lawmakers make that connection. In a memo, the group urged congressional Democrats to trace the Trump administration’s actions to people in and outside government, as well as corporations, who may be profiting from those moves.

“Corruption is not just corruption,” said the group’s senior adviser, Jack Miller. “It is costing taxpayers and costing Americans in their everyday lives.”

Some Democratic lawmakers are already stressing that congressional investigations have to be directly tied to affordability issues, while urging restraint.

Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said that Democrats need to earn voters’ trust, and while investigations are an important part of the Democratic agenda, “we can’t turn this into just a vengeance tour.”

“We have to be careful, cautious and judicious about that,” Welch said.

Kim and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Lisa Mascaro and polling writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

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.”

US President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he had reached an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end Washington’s annual military assistance to Israel, estimated at approximately $3.8 billion, by the end of 2026.

The announcement reportedly surprised Israel’s security establishment, where senior officials said they had not received advance notice or detailed information about the decision and its potential implications.

Israel’s public broadcaster Kan 11 quoted a senior security official as saying the announcement had caught the defense establishment off guard despite ongoing consultations with Washington.

“We did not expect this announcement—certainly not today,” the official said.

“There is a constant dialogue with the Americans, yet it is fair to say that we were taken by surprise,” the official added, noting that the relevant authorities would assess the implications once further details became available.

Speaking in an interview with Fox News, Trump said he and Netanyahu had agreed several months earlier to discontinue the annual financial transfers, which he estimated at approximately $4 billion.

READ: Trump pressures Netanyahu to exclude Ben-Gvir and paves way for unity government

Trump said the two sides had agreed to stop the payments, adding that Israel no longer required the assistance because of its economic prosperity.

“We will no longer pay Israel,” Trump said, while emphasizing that Washington would remain prepared to provide support if necessary.

“Of course, we will help them if they need it,” he added.

The reported agreement raises questions about the future of US military assistance to Israel, particularly because the existing ten-year memorandum of understanding governing American security aid remains in effect until 2028.

Under the agreement, Israel receives approximately $3.8 billion annually in US military assistance.

In addition to this regular funding, Washington has provided Israel with billions of dollars in supplementary military assistance in recent years amid the war in Gaza and Israeli military confrontations involving Lebanon and Iran.

The report did not clarify how the proposed termination would be implemented under the existing agreement or whether the necessary legislative and administrative measures had been initiated.

READ: Trump claims his endorsement helped Netanyahu perform better than expected in Israeli election

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”.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D) with María Corina Machado and her aides in January 2026.

Last night’s results confirmed what had long been signaled. As of this writing, Democrats are winning the House of Representatives with at least 228 seats, and the Senate with 54. Beyond Congress, they secured a majority of governorships for the first time in 16 years.

The White House’s reaction is a preview of what the next two years will look like. This morning, they posted a photo of the president with the caption: “Notice: Trump is still your president,” an idea echoed on X by his communications director, Steven Cheung. With this message, the administration appeared to signal that Trump will continue governing by executive fiat, bypassing Congress.

For Venezuelans, the question today is: what changes with this new majority? The answer remains the same: oversight. The tools Democrats have just regained could enable them to pressure the administration into accelerating an electoral process in Venezuela.

The races behind the shift

The surprise of the night came in South Carolina, where Annie Andrews won by four points in a state Trump carried by 18 in 2024. Results in Texas (James Talarico against Ken Paxton), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), Kansas (Adam Hamilton), Iowa (Josh Turek), and Maine—where Troy Jackson defeated Susan Collins—illustrate how White House policies exacted a toll on congressional Republicans.

This pushback was not confined to Congress: Democrats took governorships in Georgia, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Arizona. In Texas, Gina Hinojosa alongside James Talarico became the first Democrats to win a statewide race in more than three decades.

Even in Florida, which remains predominantly Republican, the figures make voter discontent clear. Byron Donalds won the governorship with 50% against David Jolly’s 48.7%. In a state Trump won just two years ago by 13 points, the margins secured by Republicans last night ought to worry them.

The line that could work for Democrats is the one led by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: accepting that what happened on January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift.

In Miami, margins collapsed for Republican representatives. María Elvira Salazar leads Eliott Rodríguez by roughly 1,100 votes in a district Trump won by 20 points in 2024, and every sign points toward a recount. Mario Díaz-Balart is winning by less than a point in District 26, while Carlos Giménez dropped from 64.6% to 53% in District 28. Despite a district map redrawn to favor Republicans, Democrat Jared Moskowitz won District 25.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz retained her seat, now in District 20, with 74.4% of the vote. Her campaign exemplifies the platform currently working for Democrats in South Florida: she publicly distanced herself from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA); criticized Trump for leaving Maduro’s inner circle in charge of Venezuela; and spearheaded the legal defense of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans. Her unyielding stance against chavismo paired with protections for the diaspora reflects both deep familiarity with the country and a roadmap for how Democrats may operate starting in January.

Translating victory into effective oversight

Over the past two years, the Republican Congress served more as Trump’s shield than as a check on his power. The president’s policies may stay the course or harden, but oversight is where the real shift occurs. Starting in January 2027, when the new Congress convenes, Democrats can leverage their victory across four fronts.

First, subpoenas. House committees will shift to Democratic hands. Robert Garcia and Gregory Meeks—previously ranking members on the Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees—will no longer be in the minority. They will have the authority to compel document production and testimony from the administration. In the Senate, the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees will also change leadership.

Second, the budget. Unlike the past two years, Republicans must now negotiate spending bills with Democrats. This gives Democrats the leverage to condition funding on greater executive transparency.

Third, appointments. High-level officials require confirmation from a Senate Trump no longer controls. Should a Supreme Court vacancy arise, that same Senate will confirm the replacement.

Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas.

Fourth, legislation. War powers resolutions that stalled in a Republican-led Congress could now pass with both chambers under Democratic control. Immigration bills long shelved in Republican drawers might finally see progress.

Real constraints remain: most legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, and overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers. Trump will continue advancing policies unilaterally, but sustained pressure on information flow and budgetary purse strings can alter outcomes.

Venezuela is a clear example of this new dynamic. Robert Garcia has spent the year probing the management of Venezuelan oil revenues. He has demanded accountability over more than $13 billion in proceeds and requested communications between the administration and companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Vitol, and Trafigura. Alongside Meeks, Garcia requested a copy of the agreement with Alejandro Betancourt’s firm and received only a single document. Come January, those letters can become subpoenas, and Salazar—who blocked Joaquín Castro’s subpoena request in September—will no longer chair the Western Hemisphere subcommittee.

Venezuela in the new dynamic between Trump and Dems

In September, I wrote that Democrats would likely take the House, that reclaiming the Senate was an uphill climb, and that Venezuela was not a party priority. The first proved accurate; the second underestimated the field. While polls anticipated Democratic gains, yesterday’s wave reshapes Venezuela’s place in the broader policy conversation.

With the White House on the defensive, Venezuela stands as one of the few accomplishments Trump can point to. Consequently, the administration will likely double down on its Venezuela policy—not out of concern for Venezuelans, but because it yields political capital. For Democrats, Venezuela exemplifies what Trump can execute without Congress, while underscoring that the diaspora does not tolerate leniency toward chavismo.

If Democrats approach Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and work to make it a bipartisan cause, it will serve as one of the few issues where this new majority exercises its mandate while projecting moderation.

In other words, amid this anti-Trump wave, the reflexive impulse will be to oppose everything the president does regarding Venezuela. That would also be an error. The viable path forward for Democrats is the one charted by Wasserman Schultz and Garcia: acknowledging that the events of January 3 cannot be undone, while demanding that priorities shift—placing free elections and the release of political prisoners ahead of oil contracts.

This approach mirrors the incentives driving Republicans in Miami. Even as they supported Trump’s hardline immigration policies (only voicing reservations weeks before the election), they also urged the White House to back María Corina Machado.

If Democrats treat Venezuela as an anchor for institutional oversight and steer it toward bipartisan consensus, it will become one of the few areas where this new majority executes its constitutional duties while projecting moderation, turning Congress into a venue for governance rather than another theater in the partisan war.

State governments also act as counterweights: governors determine whether to cooperate with ICE, sign 287(g) agreements, and administer election systems. Holding a majority of statehouses, including Texas and Georgia, gives Democrats greater influence over how the 2028 presidential race is run.

A first step toward 2028

This outcome is not a blank check for Democrats. Just as yesterday’s results served as a reprimand to the governing party in the White House, failure to convert this win into tangible outcomes will leave Democrats with little leverage by 2028. To preserve their gains, they must deliver on three fronts:

First, visible results. Voters penalized the cost of living, not just the president. If the new majority limits itself to holding hearings and releasing findings, it will alienate those who voted based on economic concerns.

Second, safeguarding the coalition. The margins in Texas and Florida demonstrated that Latino voters shifted over immigration and the economy rather than an ideological realignment. Retaining the Latino vote through 2028 will require legislative momentum on immigration reform.

Third, discipline. If oversight devolves into a weekly spectacle or a bid for social media engagement, Republicans will frame it as obstruction. Limiting executive overreach is not a partisan campaign; it is a constitutional imperative. Republicans who have broken with Trump on select issues remain natural allies.

What matters is forging a shared vision among potential Democratic contenders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela.

Throughout the campaign, Republicans routinely characterized Democrats as socialists—a narrative fueled by statements from the DSA, some of whose members went so far as to demand Maduro’s release. Yet the DSA’s actual leverage within the party remains far smaller than Republicans suggest. Its candidates expanded margins primarily in safe Democratic seats.

The decisive shift in this election occurred where centrists won over independent voters by substantial margins, such as Jon Ossoff taking 59% in Georgia or Chris Pappas winning by 14 points in New Hampshire. A sensible Venezuela policy should therefore focus on building bipartisan ground: advancing mechanisms like the Jeanne Shaheen–Ted Cruz resolution or Jared Moskowitz’s transition framework.

It is too early to settle on Democratic presidential contenders, but early discussions include Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jon Ossoff, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Gavin Newsom.

Beyond Ocasio-Cortez’s consistent critique of interventionist foreign policy and former Vice President Harris’s familiarity with the Biden administration’s stance toward Caracas, none of these figures has really managed a deep portfolio on Venezuela.

Harris endorsed Machado while running against Trump, while AOC refused to recognize Maduro as the winner of the July 28, 2024 election. Among the potential candidates, AOC, Newsom, Buttigieg, and Harris have all commented—some with sharp criticism, others with calculated ambiguity—on the events of January 3.

What matters moving forward is forging a shared vision among these leaders that enables them to demand swift, free elections in Venezuela. At its core, Venezuelans are demanding a government that improves everyday life, rather than one distracting the public with opaque oil deals that benefit a narrow few.

Democrats now have an opening to help shape Venezuela’s transition. Doing so requires activating the oversight and transparency tools they have long championed, including demanding visibility into the White House negotiations that began this past August.

The Dodgers lost four straight playoff games to the Milwaukee Brewers in a humiliating end to their season.

But this was worse.

Steve Hilton lost to Xavier Becerra in the race for governor before “Jeopardy” aired.

But this was worse.

President Trump lost early, late and often Tuesday night in the midterm elections.

In contests across the country — for governor, for Senate, for the House — he had told people to vote as if he was on the ballot.

They did, and Democrats ran the table, taking the House and then the Senate.

Trump lost big, inspected the wreckage, and claimed the problem was lousy candidates.

Has he lost a step? I would have expected him to say the election was stolen. All of the elections.

But maybe he realized that for all intents and purposes, his political career is over. Trump was trounced, the country triumphed, and the long national nightmare is over, but for the rest of his lame duck presidency.

I don’t think we were witnessing a national love affair with Democrats, nor do I think Tuesday night’s winning political party has all the answers on any of the day’s pressing matters. The Dems have their own problems, including an identity crisis and a shortage of bankable presidential prospects.

But the country’s voters signaled loud and clear that they’re tired of:

The lies.

The insults and name-calling.

The hatred.

The chaos.

The self-dealing.

The lack of civility.

The absence of humility.

Last week I turned on the news and saw Trump making fun of the name of newly elected Michigan Sen. Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim.

An awful thing to see a president do, but here’s what’s worse:

I wasn’t surprised.

Then I saw him say at a political rally that he had looked at a man’s rear end, “and I’ve never done that before…Off the record, women, yes, men no, OK?”

Again, no surprise.

He once mocked the physical appearance of a female presidential primary foe, as well as the wife of a male foe, and insisted for years that the first Black president was secretly from Africa.

Trump had always been able to get away with this sort of numbskullery. His true believers were willing to put up with it as long as he seemed true to his promise of working on their behalf. Until they could no longer deny that he was only working on his own behalf.

The cryptocurrency profiteering. The bloody ballroom. The gold-plating of the White House.

All of it while working people, including staunch supporters, struggled to understand the goofball tariffs and wondered when the promise of lower grocery prices would be delivered.

Trump and the Republicans might have prevailed Tuesday night if not for the war in Iran, which everyone is still paying for at the gas pump. The president who promised we’d stay out of international conflicts went all in, for no good reason, then said it was over, we won, except that it’s not over, and we didn’t win.

And there’s no exit plan.

But so what?

It’s not like Trump is paying for gas. His golf cart is probably electric.

In the beginning, as a Republican populist who tapped into justifiable voter disapproval of Democratic leadership, Trump was onto something when he first ran for president. The scapegoating of immigrants was odious even then, but in 2016, at a Trump campaign rally in Arizona, I caught a glimpse of his appeal to adoring fans who cheered the presidential candidate’s vow to build a border wall, strengthen the military and make America great again. A struggling low-wage worker told me Trump was the best hope for a new day.

“We’re going to come back and rebuild our country,” Trump told the approving crowd that day in Arizona. “You will never be disappointed with me. … You are going to be so proud of your president.”

The act worked for way longer than I would have predicted. But 10 years later, and halfway through a second presidency, the gig is up. Voters said yes, they are disappointed, and no, they’re not so proud.

We thought we were having a mid-term election.

It turned out to be a political wake.

But also an awakening.

Red states voted for blue candidates in a nearly total Trump rebuke.

As I watched the returns Tuesday night, I thought about my daughter–an earth science grad student–and her generation. She’s 23, which means that for almost half her life, Trump has been a political force. Imagine being that young and living in a country that twice elected one of the most divisive and scabrous figures in history.

A man who attacked judges, invaded American cities, insisted ad nauseum that a lost election was stolen, pardoned the Jan. 6 barbarians, exonerated political donors and allies, called climate change a con job, gutted environmental protections and upended America’s global in scientific research.

It’s easy to understand why younger generations have lost faith in elections, both primary parties and the political/corporate establishment.

But on Tuesday, voters of all ages turned out and said enough already, in states red and blue.

The man who so bitterly divided us might ultimately have united us, at least for an evening.

That doesn’t mean that there is consensus on much of anything. Surely calamity awaits, just beyond the shadows, and new species of political trolls are being spawned as we live and breathe. But there was hope, on election night, in the collective declaration that we deserve and demand better.

Trump once said he was so popular and powerful, he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York, shoot somebody, and not lose any voters.

It might have been true once.

But he’s lost them now.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — As the scale of the Republican Party’s losses came into focus late Tuesday, President Trump watched from the White House and went looking for someone to blame.

First it was Fox News. Just before midnight, with Democrats projected to seize control of the House, Trump wrote on Truth Social that the network “bears responsibility for these losses by constantly and consistently putting on the Dumocrat opposition, and worse.” Then it was the fact that he had not been on the ballot, otherwise, he said, “we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!”

Minutes later, Trump was on the phone with the same network he had just accused of sabotaging his party. And over a 22-minute interview, conducted before the Senate had been called for Democrats, his tone shifted from grievance to something closer to acceptance, though never to the idea that the election results were a rebuke on his administration.

“Congratulations to the Democrats. They did a good job. They’ve been looking for this one for 11 years and they finally got it,” the president said. “But I don’t view it as a hit on me. I think we’ve had the greatest two years in the history of the president in terms of the economy, in terms of all the things that we’ve done.”

Reflecting on the losses, Trump largely put the onus on the candidates, some of whom he said he only endorsed for the good of the party.

“I was trying to get people that, frankly, let’s say that I didn’t get along with. But for the purposes of the party I went along with it,” he said.

Trump said his supporters “didn’t like the candidates,” and that some of the nominees had failed to “inspire” the MAGA base, which over a span of 30 days he tried to engage in campaign rallies in Republican strongholds, including South Carolina, Texas and Kansas, where Democrats pulled off upsets against the GOP candidates.

As Trump reflected on the election results, he offered a narrow acknowledgment that his war with Iran has played a role, saying voters “probably don’t agree with the short-term consequences” such as higher gas prices.

“It’s a short-term problem but for long term-gain,” he said, and then argued that history would judge his actions in the Middle East as “much more important than this evening.”

Looking ahead to what the election results mean for the last two years of his presidency with Democrats in control, Trump said he is willing to work with them — but that he will not hesitate to use the power of the veto.

“I have the power of veto, one of the strongest powers that a president has and they’ll send over things that are insane and I will veto them,” he said.”After a couple of months of vetoes they will call, and they’ll say, how do we get this stuff done? And we’ll work together.”

Trump said he has “a lot of friends who are Democrats.” He said he talked to five Democrats – two senators and three representatives – on Tuesday night and that three others were about to call him.

In the end, Trump said Democrats “fought hard” and did a “good job.”

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.

Mérida, November 3, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Foreign Minister Oliver Blanco held meetings with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a trip to Washington, DC, on Monday.

Blanco, who was appointed as the Caribbean nation’s top diplomat on October 30, is the highest-ranking Venezuelan official to be hosted by the Trump administration.

His morning summit with Rubio included a photo-op but no statements to the press. On social media, Blanco reaffirmed the acting Delcy Rodríguez government’s “commitment to continue building spaces for understanding for the benefit of Venezuela.”

“During the meeting, we discussed bilateral relations, regional challenges, cooperation, and energy security between our countries,” he wrote.

For his part, Rubio stressed the Trump administration’s “three-phase plan” for Venezuela, which comprises “stabilization, economic recovery and political reconciliation, and democratic transition.”

“[Rubio and Blanco] discussed progress in the Venezuelan-led reconciliation talks, including institutional reforms that lay the groundwork for free, fair, and credible elections,” a State Department press statement read.

The head of Venezuelan diplomacy followed up with a meeting with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent which reportedly focused on “conditions for Venezuela’s full economic development.” Blanco added that the pair discussed Venezuela’s “access to multilateral financial bodies and bilateral economic cooperation opportunities.”

Despite reestablished diplomatic ties and significant US control over Venezuela’s economy and the oil industry, the US Treasury Department has maintained its wide-reaching sanctions program against the South American country, issuing only limited licenses granting exemptions to specific corporations.

The US Treasury Secretary congratulated Blanco on his recent appointment and claimed the White House is “committed to supporting Venezuela’s economic recovery.” 

“This Administration is committed to supporting Venezuela’s economic recovery, revitalizing critical sectors, boosting energy production, and reconnecting its financial sector to restore confidence, attract investment, and lay the groundwork for a more prosperous future,” Bessent stated on X.

The high-level Washington, DC meetings were Blanco’s first trip abroad as foreign minister. He had previously served as vice minister for Europe and North America. 

The 34-year-old foreign relations graduate hails from the ranks of the opposition Acción Democrática party and had been an outspoken critic of the Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro governments. In 2013, Blanco celebrated Chávez’s death, claiming he was in hell alongside Muammar Gaddafi and Osama Bin Laden. The tweet was recently deleted.

In 2016, Blanco was appointed head of communications for the opposition-controlled National Assembly that unsuccessfully tried to oust the Maduro government.

Since the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores, Washington and Caracas fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement that included the reopening of their respective embassies after seven years of broken ties.

The Trump administration has backed legislative reforms, spearheaded energy deals, endorsed a dialogue process with the Venezuelan opposition, while also reportedly engaging in military and intelligence cooperation.

After assuming his role in the foreign ministry, Blanco became one of the most visible figures in the renewed relations with the US, often accompanying US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett on visits and meetings around the country.

Barrett was among the first to congratulate Blanco following his promotion to head Venezuela’s diplomacy, wishing him “success as we work together on the three-phase plan.”

The two held a “cordial and constructive” meeting on Friday. 

Blanco flew to Spain following his US trip to take part in the Iberoamerican Summit taking place on Wednesday and Thursday.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

For more than a decade, Donald Trump seemed to defy all the known laws of political physics.

He was impeached, repeatedly indicted and convicted of multiple felony counts. He ranted and raged and acted more like a colicky infant than any president that anyone living today has ever seen.

He enriched himself lavishly, pursued his self-interests relentlessly and indulged his whimsies — from war, to tariffs to tacky decor — without regard to cost, crudeness or any flicker of conscience.

And yet Trump bestrode the country like no figure since Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was not just a political titan, but an irresistible social and cultural force.

On Tuesday, however, time, impatience and gravity finally caught up with Trump.

He took an electoral thrashing that will stand alongside the worst political beat-downs of modern times. His party not only lost control of the House and Senate, but drowned in a blue wave that swept away Republicans in election contests big and small, from sea to shining sea.

No lies, no bluster, no flimsily drafted lawsuits challenging the result can change or overturn that fact.

Presidents almost invariably lose congressional seats at the midpoint of their term, especially during their second stretch in office. But Tuesday’s results weren’t predestiny. They were a Republican disaster wholly of Trump’s making.

Keeping control of the House, which the GOP held by a historically small margin, was always going to be exceedingly difficult, even after Trump and his allies ruthlessly gerrymandered congressional lines to improve their chances. Democrats needed a gain of merely three seats. They scooped those up before the polls even closed in California, Nevada and other Western states.

The only question, with many races still to be decided, is how big a majority Democrats will enjoy when the next Congress convenes in January.

The Senate, where Republicans enjoyed a 53-47 advantage, should have been the GOP’s bulwark.

The political map could scarcely have been more favorable. Roughly two-thirds of the contested Senate seats were in states that Trump carried in 2024. Five of the seven toss-up races were in states Trump won, several by double digits.

Democrats were happily biding their time Tuesday night, awaiting results from Michigan and Alaska to see how many seats they would ultimately gain.

At the start of this election cycle, the notion that Democrats would seriously compete in such deep-red bastions as Kansas, South Carolina and Texas would have seemed absurd. On Tuesday, voters elected Democrats James Talarico in Texas and Annie Andrews in South Carolina, the first time the party has won a statewide office in either state in decades.

In Kansas, Adam Hamilton beat Roger Marshall to become Kansas’ first Democratic U.S. senator since before “The Wizard of Oz” was released in movie theaters in 1939.

Trump could not have done more in the last two years to undermine his party and its political standing if he’d purposely set out on a mission of self-sabotage.

His meddling in primaries left Republicans with several flawed candidates, including in Texas and South Carolina. His cruel and roughshod anti-immigrant policies alienated Latinos, who just two years ago voted for Trump in record numbers.

His tariffs and, in particular, go-it-alone war with Iran stoked inflation and sent the cost of gas, diesel, groceries and fertilizer soaring. Those elevated prices taxed consumers everywhere but hit particularly hard in rural, small town and exurban America, which is home to much of the Republican base.

Trump’s focus on building a White House ballroom, raising a triumphal arch and resurfacing Washington’s Reflecting Pool — which he visited on election eve for a closing message, that, inexplicably, drew attention to its botched renovation — showed exactly where his skewed priorities lie during these economically anxious times.

Empathetic it was not.

As inflation worsened and his seeming obtuseness grew — “I don’t give a damn,” Trump said of higher gas prices, “we’re making a freaking fortune” — the president’s approval ratings sank to levels not seen since a Trump-inspired mob laid siege to the Capitol in a failed bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Even that defeat wasn’t as bad as Tuesday’s political massacre.

Voters were not happy.

Roughly three-quarters of those sampled by the Associated Press said they were angry or dissatisfied with the overall direction of the country as well as the state of the economy. Nearly 7 in 10 said they wanted Congress, supine under Republican control, to provide more checks and balances on the capricious president.

We live in an age of remarkable political volatility.

From 1960 to 1978, there were three elections in which control of the White House, Senate or House switched parties. From 1980 to 1998, there were four. Since 2000, there have been 12 elections in which power shifted, with Tuesday’s midterm referendum being the latest.

Voters have punished presidents for an unpopular war (in Iraq), for policies they didn’t like (Obamacare, threatened cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) and for that particular scourge of presidents and their parties, inflation.

But no other midterm election this century delivered the kind of personal repudiation that Trump faced, because no other president placed himself so very front and center in the campaign.

Riding the thermals of his over-inflated ego, marching stridently beneath his banner of self-regard, Trump incessantly urged voters “to pretend I’m on the ballot.” They did and their verdict was thunderous and clear.

Trump lost. Epically.

Let the healing — and the reckoning — begin.