Although MS NOW host Joe Scarborough is a blistering critic of President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and rooted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024, the Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman remains a staunch defender of pre-MAGA Reagan and Goldwater conservatism. The Republican Party, as Scarborough sees it, took a wrong turn when it went MAGA.

During a Friday, December 12 rant on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" — which he hosts with liberal Mika Brzezinski — Scarborough argued that Trump is dropping the ball badly on the economy and that Republicans are destined to suffer in the 2026 midterms if they echo Trump's claim that "affordability" is a Democratic "hoax."

Scarborough said of Republicans, "They are setting themselves up every single day for political disaster next year….. It is astounding to me."

The "Morning Joe" host stressed that while Wall Street millionaires and billionaires are doing well in the stock market, many everyday Americans are struggling because of high prices.

Scarborough told Brzezinski, "Bill Clinton was able to say to Americans, 'I feel your pain.' They believed him. He was extraordinarily successful as a politician for decades because of that…. Now, (Trump's) problem is we have a divided economy. You have the top 10 percent of Americans that account for over 50 percent of our GDP this past year."

The Never Trump conservative continued, "So, if the GDP is doing well and the stock market is doing well…. Working Americans, middle Americans, middle-class Americans who are struggling to get by —they're not feeling that part of the GDP. And so, Donald Trump can't feel their pain and has never claimed to feel their pain."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Although Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election wasn't the "landslide" he claims it was — he won the national popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent — it showed how resilient he is as a politician. Trump was facing four criminal indictments at the time, yet he not only won the popular vote for the first time — he also made gains among Latinos, Generation Z, tech bros, swing voters and independents.

Now ten and one-half months into his second presidency, Trump is being dogged by low approval ratings. And the economy — especially inflation — is a key factor, according to polls.

During an appearance on The New Republic's "The Daily Blast" podcast, The Bulwark's Will Saletan argued that the more Trump trashes the gains he made in 2024, the more unhinged he becomes.

Saletan told host Greg Sargent, "There's now a lot of numbers to back up the thesis that the shift of ethnic minorities, of Blacks and Latinos in particular, to Donald Trump in 2024 has reversed. In the exit polls, which we have in New Jersey and Virginia from last month, you can just see massive shifts…. Compared to 2024 in Virginia, Blacks and Latinos shifted 13 and 15 points. So 15 points, a little bit under for the two groups, towards the Democrats away from Trump. So that's in the 2025 gubernatorial election in Virginia versus the 2024 presidential in that same state."

Saletan continued, "In New Jersey, it was twice that. It was a 24-point shift among Latinos, 28-point shift among Blacks — again, away from Trump in the New Jersey governor’s race."

Saletan noted that "Republican candidates down the ballot are paying the price" for Trump's flawed messaging on the economy. And the more Trump talks about the economy, the Bulwark journalist stressed, the worst things become for his party.

Saletan told Sargent, "I watch everything this guy says. I know that's insane and masochistic. I watch everything he says; I have notes on it. I can't count the number of times that he has said.... since he's been back in power, that prices are coming down, that he's bringing prices down. Specifically, things like groceries. I mean, you don't have to look farther than the Consumer Price Index and the all-government reports on grocery prices to know that that's just BS, right? But he lies about the numbers. And then, the problem is Americans, of course, who actually go to grocery stores and buy things, are like, 'Actually, that doesn't seem to be true.' So they think things are getting worse."

Listen to the full podcast at this link or read the transcript here.

Ten and one-half months into his second presidency, Donald Trump continues to be dogged by the very thing that imperiled former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election: inflation.

The United States, as liberal economist Paul Krugman has often noted, enjoyed record-low unemployment during Biden's presidency. But Trump hammered Biden and Harris relentlessly on inflation during the presidential race, and that messaging helped him pull off a narrow victory of roughly 1.5 percent in the popular vote. Now, Trump is the one facing voters who are frustrated over the economy.

In an article published by MS NOW on December 12, journalist Jack Fitzpatrick (formerly of Bloomberg News) stresses that Republicans need a unified message on "affordability" but are flailing badly.

"Republicans insist they have a plan to deal with affordability issues," Fitzpatrick explains. "The problem is, if you ask 15 Republicans in Congress what that plan looks like — as MS NOW did this week — you're likely to get 15 different answers. For most Republicans, the responses were divided into two camps: a new health care bill or the reconciliation package Republicans passed over the summer. Conservatives have pushed for a partisan follow-up to the reconciliation bill, pointing to proposals on health care and housing. But other Republicans are urging leaders to more vigorously sell voters on the tax cuts already enacted in July."

Fitzpatrick adds, "When pressed for a specific plan on affordability, however, no GOP lawmaker was able to point to a fully formed proposal — at least, not a single proposal."

Fitzpatrick reports that Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) and Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina) are insisting that Republicans have a plan on high prices but aren't offering specifics. But MAGA Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) told MS NOW that GOP lawmakers "have to have more conversations and actually get something to the floor."

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) told MS NOW, "Messaging is something that the House of Representatives — the Republicans in the House — need to do a better job on."

Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) believes that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) needs to be a lot more proactive when it comes to pursuing a health care bill.

Kennedy told MS NOW, "I just think (Thune is) making a mistake — a big, big mistake. And we will look back and go, 'What planet were we living on?' Especially if the midterms don't go well for us."

Read Jack Fitzpatrick's full article for MS NOW at this link.

President Donald Trump continues to berate U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whose term ends on May 15, 2026, for not lowering interest rates at a rapid pace. Powell is cutting interest rates slowly and gradually, but Trump wants major rate cuts in a hurry and is searching for a Fed chair replacement who will do exactly what he wants.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark, former Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell — now a weekend host on MS NOW — lays out some reasons why Trump's efforts to destroy the Fed's independence may be his "most damaging" economic policy of all.

"There are many items on President Trump’s agenda that are hurting the U.S. economy: the pointless trade wars, the socialization of the private sector, the mass deportations, and much more," Rampell warns. "But in the long run, the most damaging policy of all might be one that's gotten scant attention, at least from non-finance-nerds: Trump's quest to crush the Federal Reserve. If Trump succeeds, he may doom the United States to high inflation for years, if not decades, to come. Bullying the Fed has long been one of Trump's favorite pastimes."

Rampell continues, "Bullying the Fed has long been one of Trump's favorite pastimes. Way back in 2019, he called Jerome Powell, the Fed chair whom he had appointed the year before, an 'enemy.' He's continued the broadsides during his second term, repeatedly musing about firing Powell — including earlier this year."

The MS NOW host emphasizes that if Trump compromises the Fed's independence, he "could seize direct control of the money supply and turn America into Venezuela."

Under two leftist presidents — first the late Hugo Chavez, now Nicolás Maduro — Venezuela has suffered severe economic problems, a debased currency, major shortages of goods, and empty shelves in stores. And Rampell fears that the U.S. could suffer similar problems if Trump is able to fill the U.S. Federal Reserve with obedient loyalists who answer only to him.

"Countries with more independent central banks tend to have much better — i.e., lower — inflation outcomes," Rampell explains. "Likewise, there are plenty of examples of countries where politicians seized control of the money supply and decided to keep that delicious punch flowing. Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey, and pre-Euro Italy come to mind. But you don't need to venture very far geographically for a cautionary tale."

Rampell continues, "This same thing happened right here in the United States, when, in turn, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each leaned on the Fed to keep interest rates low. You may recall the painful stagflation that resulted in the 1970s. But if you're too young, ask your parents about it. Powell certainly remembers it."

Catherine Rampell's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

Ten and one-half months after returning to the White House, Donald Trump hasn't had nearly as many conflicts with administration officials and appointees as he did during his first presidency. Trump, this time, has made a point of picking MAGA loyalists who are unlikely to question him — unlike all the traditional conservatives he fired or forced out when he was in the White House before, from a secretary of state (Rex Tillerson) to two U.S. attorneys general (Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr) to a national security adviser (John Bolton) to a White House chief of staff (John F. Kelly).

But according to Salon's Heather Digby Parton, Trump may have some firings in mind for 2026.

"Staffing of the White House during the president's first term was famously a constant state of chaos; the list of resignations and dismissals was a mile long," Parton explains in an article published on December 11. "But as before, Trump rarely faced the people he was firing. FBI Director James Comey — whom Trump is currently attempting to put in prison — learned of his termination in May 2017 while watching cable news on a business trip to California. Trump never spoke to Comey personally, but he did order that the former director couldn't travel back to Washington, D.C. on the FBI plane, forcing Comey to take a commercial flight."

Parton continues, "Rex Tillerson, Trump's first secretary of state, was informed that he was fired while in the bathroom. In 2017, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly was given the duty of firing Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, adviser Steve Bannon and dozens of others, before being pushed out himself in December 2018. The president's second term has been different."

For his second presidency, Parton notes, Trump has chosen an "insufferable crowd of MAGA influencers, Fox News toadies and hardcore loyalists that have proved themselves to him over the course of the previous decade in the trenches." And many of them have been "egregiously unqualified."

"So far, this new approach has resulted in very little turnover," Parton observes. "There have been a couple of instances where someone hasn't worked out. But instead of firing them, he has taken to promoting people to different jobs…. But as we approach the first anniversary of Trump's second inauguration, rumblings of impending personnel changes are growing louder."

The Salon reporter continues, "Most are centered on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has produced the most scandals of any Trump appointee…. Last week, The Bulwark broke the story, since confirmed by other outlets, that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is also on the chopping block…. Finally, there's FBI Director Kash Patel, who seems to spend most of his time jetting around on the FBI plane with his country-singer girlfriend."

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

Tensions between the Trump Administration and Venezuela escalated when, on Wednesday, December 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that an oil tanker had been seized off of the Venezuelan coast in the Caribbean. Three officials, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told the New York Times that the tanker was carrying Venezuelan oil.

The incident followed a series of U.S. military attacks on Venezuelan boats that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allege were smuggling illegal drugs headed for the United States. Many critics of Trump's Venezuela policy are describing the attacks as "extrajudicial killings," alleging that the Trump Administration isn't following the rules of war.

Politico legal analyst Ankush Khardori, a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), addresses the legality of the boat strikes in an article published on December 11.

"Perhaps not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior military leaders have faced the worst of the political uproar from the Trump Administration's boat strikes off the coasts of Central and South America," Khardori explains. "The campaign has produced at least 87 deaths and one of the few episodes of bipartisan pushback in Trump's second term following the revelation that the U.S. military conducted a 'double tap' strike on an alleged drug boat that intentionally killed two survivors of an earlier strike. But very serious questions about the legality of the effort in its entirety — even setting aside the double tap strike — should be directed at the Trump Administration's top lawyers."

Khardori continues, "In particular, there is a dubious, but still classified, memo that was reportedly produced over the summer by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that signs off on the campaign and asserts that everyone in the chain of command is entitled to criminal immunity because the United States is said to be engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels."

If any activity associated with the Venezuelan boat strikes are found to be illegal, Khardori warns, Trump officials won't enjoy the presidential immunity protections that Trump himself enjoys.

In its Trump v. the United States decision of 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that presidents enjoye absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts but not "unofficial" acts committed while in office. The Nation's Elie Mystal, a scathing critic of the ruling, argued that it was dangerous because it give presidents "absolute" immunity rather than merely "qualified immunity."

Khardori notes that Trump v. the United States only offers immunity protections to Trump, not to others involved in the Venezuela operation.

"Trump may be immune from criminal prosecution in the U.S. thanks to the Supreme Court, but everyone else involved, in theory at least, faces the risk of federal prosecution in a future administration unless Trump at some point grants some or all of them a pardon," according to the former federal prosecutor. "For all of the Trump Administration's bravado, getting legal signoff for the boat strikes may not have been as simple as it now appears. Multiple media outlets have reported that proponents of the strikes were forced to push aside or ignore government lawyers who concluded that the military campaign is unlawful or otherwise questioned its legality."

Ankush Khardori's full article for Politico is available at this link.

MAGA Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) is facing a major controversy because of her behavior at the Charleston International Airport on October 30, when — according to an internal investigation by airport police — she berated airport and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers, using demeaning insults and engaging in a profanity-filled rant.

The controversy escalated when Mace, on December 9, told CNN that "part of the report" was "actually falsified."

Mace discussed the incident some more during a Thursday, December 11 appearance on Fox Business. The MAGA congresswoman had a lot to say about security protections for Republican officials, but host Maria Bartiromo pushed for more details on what happened at the Charleston International Airport on October 30.

Mace doubled down on her claim that airport officials "did file a fictitious police incident report," adding, "Here's the thing, Maria: We have to take our security very seriously. If you're conservative, if you're well-known, if you have fought the transgender community like I have exponentially — in the wake of Charlie Kirk's public assassination — the death threats, the amount of political violence, the celebration of the killing of conservatives, is deeply disturbing."

The GOP lawmaker added that "when there is a security breach, one mistake can have devastating consequences."

But Bartiromo pressed Mace for more specifics, saying, "What I'm asking you is: What happened? You're suing the airport and American Airlines?"

Mace, in response, once again alleged that there was a "security breach" at the airport and claimed that the police report's account of her actions at the airport was "falsified."

When Donald Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign, the paleoconservative "America First" views that he expressed echoed Patrick Buchanan's isolationism and were a major departure from the hawkish Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. And now-Vice President JD Vance echoed the "America First" outlook when, in July 2024, he said he didn't "really care what happens to Ukraine, or way or another."

But veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove, in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal on December 10, argued that American voters aren't as isolationist as America First proponents would like. And the article is getting a rave review from former Vice President Mike Pence.

On X, formerly Twitter, Pence described Rove's op-ed as a "great essay," noting that Rove addresses the question: "How isolationist are Trump's voters?"

"The newly released White House National Security Strategy raises again the question whether Americans are turning isolationist," Rove explains. "A recent poll suggests they aren't."

The poll that Rove references was conducted by the Ronald Reagan Institute.

"The 2025 survey produced some surprising results," Rove observes. "Sixty-four percent of Americans believe it's better for the U.S. to be more engaged and take the lead. Only 33 percent think it's better for the country to be less engaged and merely react to events. The partisan breakout was also counterintuitive. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of Democrats supported greater U.S. engagement. Nor are Americans turning their backs on Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sixty-eight percent view NATO favorably, the highest share since the Reagan Institute began polling in 2018."

Rove continues, "Even more, 76 percent, support U.S. military force if a NATO ally is attacked, up from 71 percent in June. Most Americans — 59 percent — oppose withdrawing from NATO. Only 34 percent support leaving, and 1 in 5 withdrawal supporters changed their minds after being told NATO allies are increasing military spending."

Karl Rove's full Wall Street Journal op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

In late November, Gallup's tracking poll found President Donald Trump's overall approval rating falling to 36 percent. And among independents, it was only 25 percent.

Trump, however, fared slightly better in a YouGov/Economist poll that found his overall approval at 39 percent.

During a Thursday, December 11 rant on MS NOW's "Morning Joe," host Joe Scarborough — a Never Trumper and former GOP congressman — warned fellow conservatives that the more "out of touch" Trump appears on the economy, the more his party will suffer for it.

Scarborough told fellow host Mika Brzezinski, the New York Times' Peter Baker and journalist Willie Geist, "It's just a question of do you get it or not. And when he goes to the Poconos and he says affordability is a con job….. He still believes it's a con job. And we looked at grocery prices going up, heating bills going up, electricity going up, cost of cars going up — the cost of everything is, again, more of a challenge than ever, ever before. And you were seeing, Peter Baker, people coming out of that event talking to (MS NOW's) Vaughn Hillyard and others saying, 'You know, he just doesn't get it.'"

The conservative "Morning Joe" Host continued, "And he's a billionaire, of course. So maybe he's not going to get it, but at least he used to pretend to get it."

Scarborough argued that Trump's unpopularity on the economy is hurting more and more GOP candidates.

The ex-congressman told Brzezinski, Baker and Geist, "You see (Gov.-elect) Abigail Spanberger win by double digits in Virginia on affordability. You saw (New Jersey Gov.-elect) Mikey Sherrill win by double digits when many people thought that race was going to be neck and neck right up until the very end. And then, of course, Miami elects their first woman mayor…. All of this keeps adding up, and Republicans understand that. The understand the president is out of touch on this key issue, and they're the ones who are suffering."

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial presidential ruling in Trump v. the United States in 2024, the criticism came not only from liberals like Justice Sonia Sotomayor — who was downright scathing in her dissent — but also, from Never Trump conservatives such as attorney George Conway and MS NOW's Joe Scarborough.

Many Never Trumpers believes that the Roberts Court is giving way too much power to the federal government's executive branch and is undermining its judicial and legislative branches in the process. And they are joining liberals, progressives, and centrist Democrats in saying that Trump, under the U.S. Constitution, is an elected official — not a king.

Another outspoken Never Trump conservative is David French, a New York Times opinion columnist and frequent guest on MS NOW. In a conservation with the Times' Emily Bazelon published on December 11, French discussed Trump v. Slaughter — a case dealing with a president's ability to fire employees of independent government agencies. The "Slaughter" is Rebecca Slaughter, who Trump fired from her position as a commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

French told Bazelon, "I don't think you can analyze Slaughter without thinking of the Court's larger separation of powers jurisprudence, which can be summarized (at least so far) as follows: The president's executive power doesn't include lawmaking, and Congress' legislative power doesn't include execution. And much mischief has occurred because Congress has delegated so much of its lawmaking power to the executive, while clinging to various ineffective checks, such as creating multi-member commissions. The result has been less democracy and more entrenched power in the executive branch, with much of that power immune from political accountability…. It has been dreadful for America to see so much lawmaking power concentrated in the presidency, and many of our worst fears regarding presidential power are rooted in decisions taken by Congress over many years to punt lawmaking to the presidency."

French, however, isn't totally pessimistic where the High Court is concerned. And according to the Never Trump conservative, it remains to be seen whether its GOP-appointed supermajority will honor checks and balances or undermine them.

"If the Supreme Court is going where I think it's going," French told Bazelon, "then I think it's going to help us recover our democracy. If not, then the parade of horribles could get quite extreme, quite fast."

David French and Emily Bazelon's conversation for the New York Times' opinion section is available at this link (subscription required).

Although President Donald Trump has been a very divisive figure in U.S. politics, he has also been incredibly resilient politically. Trump, in 2024, was facing four criminal indictments, one of which found him being convicted on 34 felony counts. Yet he handily defeated a long list of prominent Republicans in the 2024 GOP presidential primary —including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — before enjoying a narrow victory over Democratic then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the general election.

Trump's victory wasn't the "landslide" he claims it is; it was a close election, and he won the popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent. Nonetheless, 2024 underscored his ability to bounce back politically when critics are writing his political obituary.

But ten and one half-months into his second presidency, Trump's approval numbers are weak. And conservative GOP pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in a New York Times op-ed published on December 11, lays out some reasons why Trump's MAGA "brand" could be in really deep trouble this time.

"What's crucial to understand about Mr. Trump's poor approval numbers is that unlike during his last time in the White House, people now disapprove of him because of the economy, not in spite of it," Anderson argues. "During his first term, concerns about him centered more on his style and approach, and his approval was lowest on issues like response to COVID-19. However, his job approval on the economy was typically a bright spot in his polling, and in my view, it was that brand attribute — a belief that, for all the baggage, Mr. Trump might be worth having as president again if he could just fix the economy — that ushered him back to power."

Politically, Anderson observes, Trump finds himself in "ominous territory" — and "affordability" has gone from being "an issue of strength" to being a liability.

"If Mr. Trump is to win back the issue of affordability and boost his job approval rating," the GOP pollster writes, "he must carefully thread the needle his predecessor was unable to. He must acknowledge Americans' pain rather than dismiss it as a 'con job'…. If Mr. Trump is to turn things around before next year's midterm elections, he will need focused messaging, along with concrete results Americans can feel in their pocketbooks."

Anderson adds, "Eggs may be cheaper today than one year ago, but many things people pay for are not, and the job approval numbers for Mr. Trump reflect that pain."

Kristen Soltis Anderson's full op-ed for the New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).

During a Tuesday, December 9 rally in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, President Donald Trump aggressively defended his economic record. Trump insisted that inflation is way down under his watch and claimed that he is making the United States "affordable again."

But the following day on MS NOW, Trump's economic record got a scathing critique from University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers.

The Australian economist, who is originally from Sydney but now lives in the U.S., laid out a variety of ways in which Trump is hurting the economy during a Wednesday morning, December 10 appearance on Ana Cabrera's show.

Wolfers told Cabera, "Look, what I want, Ana, is for us to have honest conversations about the economy. Prices are rising; people feel that. Those are two realities. Another reality is that prices tend to rise in modern economies. It's called inflation. What we typically try to do is not get prices to fall, but get them to rise sufficiently slowly that you barely notice it. When the president says prices are falling, he's lying. When he says he's going to get prices down, he really shouldn't. Because the only way to get prices down is to crush the economy."

The United States, Wolfers added, needs to have "a mature and responsible conversation" about the economy — and Trump isn't offering that.

"Prices are rising," Wolfers told Cabrera, "and what we want from policy is for them to rise slowly — and for people to have an opportunity to get wage rises so that their overall quality of life can do more than keep up, actually get ahead…. I think there's a lot of pain out there right now. Often, we'd say that there's not much that a president can do to shape the economy, except this is a president who's given no deference at all to Congress. And so, the president has done a lot of things."

Wolfers continued, "Let's be clear. He's imposed tariffs…. We have mass deportations; that's making it very difficult for some parts of the economy, particularly agriculture and construction, to get the workers they want. We had the Big, Beautiful Bill, which is the largest redistribution of money from poor to rich in a single bill in American history. We've got the Obamacare subsidies expiring, which could lead to a big shock to the health insurance costs facing a lot of Americans. And we've had overall attempts to undermine Obamacare as well — as well as the loss of renewable energy subsidies and attacks on SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). So, if you want to see what's driving the affordability crisis, you don't need to look any further than the White House."

Outside of Union Station in Washington, D.C., activists have been regularly demonstrating against policies of the second Trump Administration — from immigration and mass deportations to the economy to health care.

Now, according to Washington's Fox Channel 5, the U.S. Park Police are ordering protesters to leave the area. But some of them are saying that they have a permit and shouldn't have to vacate.

Nana-Sentuo Bonsu and Jillian Smith of Fox Channel 5 report, "These protesters told Fox 5 on Tuesday, (December 9), that they aren't backing down…. If you've been to Union Station recently, you've likely noticed the tents pitched outside. They belong to different groups protesting different issues — mainly against the current administration."

One of the groups told Fox 5 that the Park Police told them they have to leave the area morning despite having a permit to protest.

Matthew Gordon, a retired U.S. Marine Corps veteran, has been protesting against Trump's use of federalized National Guard troops in Washington. And now, he is among the protesters being told to leave the area.

Gordon told Fox 5, "The National Park Service, who manages the plaza and the circle, they told us we have until 12 p.m. Wednesday…. to vacate the premises to begin the 'beautification and construction' on Columbus Circle."

Read the full Fox Channel 5 article at this link.

It's no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania for a MAGA rally on Tuesday, December 9. Pennsylvania, as Democratic strategist James Carville famously noted back in the late 1980s, is a complex and volatile swing state that can go either Democrat or Republican. And Trump has a history of both winning and losing in the Keystone State, which he carried in 2016 and 2024 but lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

The Mount Pocono event marked Trump's return to MAGA rallies after putting them on the backburner during his second presidency. But Salon's Sophia Tesfaye, in a biting article published on December 10, attacks the Mount Pocono gathering as a "flop."

"Donald Trump's midterm reboot was supposed to be the triumphant return of a political heavyweight," Tesfaye explains. "After Democrats saw impressive gains in off-year elections across the country in November, White House advisers promised the president would return to the campaign trail to storm the 2026 midterms with the same 'fire and dominance' he claimed to wield in 2024 — infamous weave and all. But if his Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania rally is any preview of what the GOP should expect, Trump's promise should be read as a threat. Far from a comeback, his return rally was a flop."

Trump aggressively defended his economic policy during the December 9 rally, which, Tesfaye emphasizes, suffered from both poor attendance and bad messaging.

"Trump's team clearly hoped the blue-collar community in one of the country's most important swing states would give him a friendly launchpad," the Salon journalist writes. "While I expected a crowd of a few thousand with the nostalgic sound of MAGA chants echoing off metal bleachers, I tuned into Fox News Tuesday evening to find the president in a conference center ballroom inside a local casino that appeared to hold, generously, 200 people. And even that small crowd seemed hesitant, almost resigned, as Trump ranted for nearly an hour."

Tesfaye adds, "Fox News, of course, dutifully avoided any wide shots. But the truth was clear on screen: The MAGA magic had vanished."

According to Tesfaye, Trump's "gaslighting" on the economy during his Pennsylvania rally did nothing to persuade swing voters.

"The Trump of 2026 is not the Trump of 2024," Tesfaye observes. "The president is clearly tired, angry, confused and incapable of adjusting to a country in economic crisis. Even Fox News can’t spin this."

Sophia Tesfaye's full article for Salon is available at this link.

President Donald Trump is angrily lashing out at Democrats for their heavy focus on inflation, insisting that "affordability" is a Democratic "hoax." Trump is also saying that voters should be thanking him because of how much he has improved the economy.

But liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a Substack column posted on December 10, argues that Trump has a losing message on the economy.

"Trump and his minions seem to have come around to admitting that Americans are, in fact, unhappy with the state of the economy," Krugman writes. "But if the economy is A+++++, why don't people see it? The problem can't possibly lie with him — so it must lie with you. 'The American people don't know how good they have it'…. Anyway, I may not be a political strategist, but I don't think 'You're all a bunch of ingrates' is a winning message. It was, however, really the only message Trump could deliver, given his utter lack of empathy or humility."

Krugman adds, "At this point, I could bombard you with a lot of data showing that the economy is not, in fact, A+++++. But it isn't a disaster area, at least not yet. So why are Americans feeling so down? The main culprit is Trump himself."

The economist and former New York Times columnist notes that Trump aggressively campaigned on lowering prices in 2024 — only to chastise voters for being worried about inflation now.

"First, during the 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to bring consumer prices way down beginning on 'Day 1,'" Krugman writes. "We're now 11 months in, prices are still rising, and voters who believed him feel, with reason, that they were lied to…. Second, Trump would be in much better political shape right now if he had basically continued (former President Joe) Biden's policies, with only a few cosmetic changes…. Instead, he brought chaos: Massive and massively unpopular tariffs, DOGE disruptions, masked ICE agents grabbing people off the street, saber-rattling and war crimes in the Caribbean."

Krugman continues, "Many swing voters, I believe, supported Trump out of nostalgia for the relative calm that prevailed before COVID struck. They didn't think they were voting for nonstop political PTSD. And there's more to come. Health insurance costs are about to spike, because Republicans refuse to extend Biden-era subsidies."

Paul Krugman's full Substack column is available at this link.

On Tuesday. December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission — which finds allies of President Donald Trump challenging a federal law limiting the amount of money that political parties can spend in coordination. The High Court's 6-3 GOP-appointed supermajority has been quite favorable to Trump in a long list of rulings, but The New Republic's Matt Ford, in an article published on December 10, lays out some reasons why he believes this case may not go Trump's way.

"The Supreme Court appeared uncertain about whether it would strike down a major campaign-finance restriction during oral arguments on Tuesday, with some of the Court's conservative members questioning a right-wing push to do so," Ford explains. "The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, revolves around a legal challenge to Congress' ban on 'coordinated party expenditures.' Federal election law currently forbids political parties from coordinating their election spending with federal candidates for office."

Ford adds, "A group of challengers, including the GOP's Senate campaign-finance arm and Vice President J.D. Vance, argued that the ban violates their First Amendment rights to political speech through campaign spending."

Ford notes that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the High Court's three Democratic appointees, was "not persuaded" by the plaintiffs' arguments during the December 9 hearing — and that Justice Sonia Somayor, appointed by former President Barack Obama, "strenuously disputed" assertions by Noel Francisco, a witness for the plaintiffs.

But it is the GOP appointees who Ford says give him reason to believe that in the end, the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission ruling won't go the plaintiffs' way.

"In addition to (Justice Clarence) Thomas, whose questions suggested concerns about the Court's own jurisdiction over the matter, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled that he might not accept the challengers' interpretation of the law in question," Ford observes. "He asked Francisco to explain the difference between 'coordinated expenditures' and actual contributions, describing it as a 'legal fiction'…. While none of the conservatives expressed regret about their past rulings, only Justice Samuel Alito seemed interested in lauding them…. Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's questions expressed some concern that the 'overall architecture of our jurisprudence' may have 'weakened or disadvantaged political parties as compared to outside groups,' but did not clearly signal what conclusions that might lead him to."

Ford adds, "Justice Neil Gorsuch asked no questions, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked only one that shed little light on her overall thinking.

Matt Ford's full article for The New Republic is available at this link.

Donald Trump's presidency has been the subject of intense debate among conservative Latinos in Florida, which he carried by roughly 14 percent in 2024. Florida-based conservative strategist Ana Navarro, originally from Nicaragua, is very much in the Never Trump camp — attacking Trump relentlessly on CNN and "The View." But U.S. Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and María Elvira Salazar are among Trump's Latina supporters in the Sunshine State.

Salazar, however, is now questioning Trump's draconian immigration policy.

In an article published on December 9, Tim Padgett — a reporter for South Florida's National Public Radio (NPR) affiliate WLRN-FM — explains, "The Trump Administration's new halt on immigration applications from countries including Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela has created alarm in South Florida — and a rare rebuke from a Miami congresswoman…. In a statement this week, Salazar calls the pause 'unfair' and 'un-American.'"

In an official statement, Salazar said, "The United States doesn't believe in collective punishment. We don't punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Freezing asylum, green card, and citizenship processes is not the answer. It punishes hardworking, law-abiding immigrants who followed every step of the legal process. That is unfair, un-American, and it goes against everything this country stands for."

Padgett notes that Salazar, a Cuban-American, "finds herself in a difficult spot ahead of next year's midterm elections."

"She needs to acknowledge that many Latinos in her Miami district are angry at President Trump's severe anti-immigration policies," Padgett reports, "but she nonetheless needs his support to pass the bipartisan immigration bill she co-sponsors, the Dignity Act, which would legalize millions of undocumented immigrants. At a town hall last week at Florida International University, sponsored by the nonprofit grassroots advocacy group 50501, Salazar expressed confidence President Trump will support and eventually sign her legislation."

Read Tim Padgett's full article for WLRN-FM at this link.

During a lengthy Tuesday night, December 9 post on his Truth Social platform, President Donald Trump bragged that "There has never been a President that has worked as hard as me" — noting that he has undergone three cognitive tests.

Trump's post comes at a time when his physical and mental well being are the subject of countless media reports. During former President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, Trump relentlessly mocked him as "Sleepy Joe." Now, Trump is being bombarded with reports that he is falling asleep during Cabinet meetings.

Trump pushed back against those reports in his Truth Social post, writing, "I go out of my way to do long, thorough and very boring Medical Examinations at the Great Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, seen and supervised by top doctors, all of whom have given me PERFECT Marks. — Some have even said they have never seen such Strong Results. I do these Tests because I owe it to our Country. In addition to the Medical, I have done something that no other President has done, on three separate occasions, the last one being recently, by taking what is known as a Cognitive Examination, something which few people would be able to do very well, including those working at The New York Times, and I ACED all three of them in front of large numbers of doctors and experts, most of whom I do not know."

Trump's post is receiving a lot of scrutiny on X.com, formerly Twitter.

MS NOW's Chris Hayes tweeted, "I guess the president just announced he recently took his latest in a series of cognitive tests, this one in front of a room full of medical personnel observing him?"

Other journalists weighed in as well.

Roger Sollenberger, formerly of the Daily Beast, tweeted, "Wonder what kind of conversation we’d be having if everyone in America were forced to read every word of this post out loud, all the way through."

The 74's Jim Roberts wrote, #25A."

TikTok News' John Aravosi commented, "This pretty much confirms Trump is having serious health problems. The first part of the tweet is a feint. The main purpose was to counter the rumors of his failing health. And mentioning that he had to go for three cognitive tests? What healthy senior has to go for three cognitive tests? I don’t think my parents ever went for one, and they lived to be 87 and 94. Everything Trump says is a lie. This is a confession."

Former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan), a libertarian/conservative Never Trumper, posted, "If anyone else wrote something like this, it would be universally acknowledged that the person is mentally unstable."

On February 24, 2020 — half a year after Jeffrey Epstein's death — the Wexner Foundation (a philanthropic group founded by billionaire Leslie Wexner), published an "independent review of" Epstein's "involvement and interactions with" the organization. The review said that the Wexner Foundation's staff had "no contact" with Epstein after he resigned as a trustee in September 2007. And before that, according to the review, Epstein "played no role in the management or administration of the Foundation's operations."

But according to an article published by Drop Site News on December 9, a newly discovered cache of e-mails from 2005-2008 conflicts with the Wexner Foundation's February 24, 2020 "review" of its relationship with Epstein.

According to Drop Site News reporters Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain, "Hundreds of leaked e-mails from Epstein's Yahoo inbox, spanning from 2005 to 2008, contradict the Wexner Foundation report. Inside the Wexners' family financial office in Ohio, staff treated Epstein as de facto chief financial officer, where major decisions about taxes, lines of credit, eight-figure funds transfers, and politically sensitive grants were routed through Epstein's lawyer, and required Epstein's approval."

Grim and Hussain report that the "new e-mail cache" was "vetted and published by Distributed Denial of Secrets, and contains many of the same forensic signatures as the dataset reported by Bloomberg earlier this year."

"The e-mails show that Darren Indyke, who served as both Epstein's personal lawyer and attorney for the (Wexner) Foundation, was the 'middleman' in such communications, cloaking Epstein's foundation-related activities with attorney-client privilege," the Drop Site News reporters explain. "Indyke is also the executor of Epstein's estate, which has been accused of 'obstructionism' for withholding 'privileged' e-mails from civil lawsuits and congressional subpoenas. The Wexner Foundation's independent reviewers did not have access to the e-mails published here, because, according to the 2020 report, 'the Foundation's archive of e-mails does not go back to Epstein's time as a Trustee.'"

Grim and Hussain continue, "On paper, the Wexner family's philanthropic foundation and their retail empire, once home to Victoria's Secret, Abercrombie & Fitch, and Bath & Body Works, were legally separate and largely had their own staff. But, in practice, as is typical of such foundations, one small family office sat over both the family's fortune and philanthropy. Internal e-mails between Epstein, Indyke, and Wexner's staff show Epstein as the effective boss of the family office, and the real gatekeeper of the Wexners' money."

Grim and Hussain note that Wexner financial controller Peg Ugland "wrote to Indyke" in "e-mail after e-mail" and cited "account balances for a web of Wexner entities — charitable trusts, private investment vehicles, and personal trading accounts — with a recurring refrain: 'Please ask Jeffrey if I can transfer.'"

One of the e-mails mentioned attorney Abigail Koppel.

"Four days before Jeffrey Epstein submitted his guilty plea to state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution, on June 26, 2008," according to the Drop Site News journalists, "Leslie Wexner sent his friend an e-mail: 'Abigail told me the result…. all I can say is I feel sorry. You violated your own number 1 rule…. Always be careful.' Epstein's reply to Wexner was contrite: 'no excuse.'"

Read Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain's full article for Drop Site News at this link.

When conservative then-Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona) announced, in 2018, that he wouldn't be seeking reelection, it reflected his dissatisfaction with Donald Trump's first presidency as well as his fear that Republicans would fare badly in the midterms. Flake's fears were justified: Democrats recaptured the U.S. House of Representatives that year, and a centrist then-Democrat, Kyrsten Sinema, won his U.S. Senate seat when she defeated GOP nominee Martha McSally.

Flake's disdain for Trumpism continued when, in 2020, he endorsed Democrat Joe Biden — who appointed Flake U.S. ambassador to Turkey after winning the election.

But Trump, defeated in 2020 yet triumphant in 2024, returned to the White House on January 20, 2025 and is now ten and one-half months into his second presidency.

In an article published by The Atlantic on December 9, Flake offers a scathing critique of the Trump Administration's Venezuela policy.

Flake, an ally of the late conservative Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), is known for being hawkish on foreign policy. But he argues that the Trump Administration's military strikes on Venezuelan boats in the Caribbean violate the rules of combat.

"Under this program," Flake explains, "small vessels suspected of carrying drugs were hit with military-grade munitions, often without any attempt to detain or even warn those aboard. In at least one case, the strikes didn't end when the boat was destroyed. Survivors adrift on the wreckage in open water were killed in a second attack, a 'double tap' designed to finish the job."

Flake continues, "During my 18 years in the House and Senate, I sat through countless briefings on when and how lethal force could be used. Later, as ambassador to Turkey, I saw how closely the world watches when we choose to honor those limits — or choose not to do so. That perspective makes these boat strikes impossible to wave off as routine. They reflect choices that fall well outside the standards we have long claimed to uphold."

The conservative ex-senator calls for much greater transparency on Venezuela — something he says the Trump Administration is not offering.

"The (Trump) Administration has resisted releasing full video of these incidents, citing national security," Flake explains. "But the more plausible concern is political and moral. It knows what the public reaction would be. Americans have strong feelings about drug trafficking, but few believe that killing people as they attempt to stay alive in the ocean fits within the bounds of justifiable force. Once confronted with the footage, most Americans would question not only the legality of the operation, but the instinct behind it…. Death inflicted on the helpless is never an act of strength; it is what remains when strength forgets its purpose."

Flake adds, "That recognition seems to exist even among some in the administration. The reluctance to release the footage suggests an awareness of the moral intuition that they fear the public will follow. Americans may disagree on many things, but they still distinguish between necessary force and needless killing. They expect their government, even in dangerous work, to understand the difference."

Former Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-Arizona) full article for The Atlantic is available at this link (subscription required).

Early Tuesday morning, December 9, The Hill reported, in two separate articles, that President Donald Trump would be visiting Pennsylvania later in the day to sell an economic message that polls are showing to be increasingly unpopular. Choosing Pennsylvania made perfect sense, as it's a must-win swing state that Trump lost in 2020 but won in 2016 and 2024.

But journalist/Never Trump conservative Charlie Sykes slammed the president's economic messaging as wildly erratic during a December 9 appearance on MS NOW — a reality that, Sykes emphasized, is reflected in Trump's weak approval ratings in polls.

When host Chris Jansing noted that Trump is attacking Democratic concerns over "affordability" as a "hoax," Sykes responded, "There's a lot of cognitive dissonance there."

The Never Trumper continued, "There is the lived experience that people have. You know, the Trump Administration likes to believe that they can have a bespoke reality, that they can bend truth and facts any way they want. But when people go into the grocery store, when they pay their electric bills, they see what's happening. And quite frankly, I'm getting a little bit of the vibes from the Biden years, where people were saying, 'Look at this chart, it's not real' — and people were saying, 'Well, look at my grocery bill.'"

Sykes argued that Trump's trip to Pennsylvania won't help him sell his economic message if voters believe he is contradicting himself.

Sykes told Jansing, "So on the one hand, you have, you know, Donald Trump, you know, trying to go to Pennsylvania to say that he cares, that he feels people's pain. On the other hand, he's saying that everything is wonderful — the economy is a plus, plus, plus — and anyone who talks about affordability is engaging in a con job. I mean, there's a real contradiction there. And it's one of the difficulties Trump iss going to have."

For many years, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville has been emphasizing that two crucial things to pay close attention to in politics are Pennsylvania and the economy.

Carville famously coined the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid" during the 1992 presidential race. And equally famous is his description of Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."

Referencing the famous 1978 film "The Deer Hunter" (starring Robert De Niro and Meryl Streep), Carville said of Pennsylvania, "They didn't film 'The Deer Hunter' there for nothing. The state has the second-highest concentration of NRA members, behind Texas."

Ten and one-half months into his second presidency, Donald Trump is, according to The Hill, using the Keystone State to sell an economic message that polls are showing to be increasingly unpopular.

Trump's focus on Pennsylvania is detailed in two articles published by The Hill on Tuesday, December 9 — one by Brett Samuels, the other by Jared Gans.

"President Trump is set to travel to Pennsylvania on Tuesday to deliver a speech on the economy, a tacit acknowledgment that he and the White House must do more to address voters' concerns about heightened costs for Americans," Samuels reports. "Trump has, so far in his second term, made sparingly few domestic trips to tout his agenda, traveling more internationally to meet a host of foreign leaders instead. But with the midterms on the horizon and Republicans struggling to sell their signature legislative accomplishment, the president is getting off the sidelines at home."

Samuels adds, "The president has been hounded by questions about what he is doing to bring down costs since elections last month saw Democrats triumph in New Jersey, Virginia and elsewhere by running on a platform focused on affordability."

According to Gans, Trump's Pennsylvania speech reflects his desire to "change the narrative on affordability" despite "rising economic dissatisfaction among the public."

"Trump has recently pushed back against the criticism of his administration over rising prices and an arguably sluggish economy, calling the term 'affordability' a 'Democrat scam' during comments at the White House last week," Gans reports. "But he seems to be shifting his approach with polls showing his approval rating well underwater and Democrats holding a lead in the generic congressional ballot. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released Monday showed 57 percent of voters believe Trump is losing the battle against inflation, the issue that respondents said they cared about the most. A majority also said Trump’s signature tariff policy is harming the economy and that the economy is shrinking."

Gans adds, "Trump has repeatedly blamed his predecessor, former President Biden, for the current economic situation, noting that inflation hit its most recent peak in the midst of the previous administration. But the effectiveness of that strategy seems to be waning as Trump approaches one year back in office and takes more ownership of current conditions."

Trump has had both successes and disappointments in Pennsylvania, long considered a must-win state in presidential elections.

After winning Pennsylvania in 2016, Trump lost the Keystone State to Joe Biden in 2020 — only to narrowly defeat Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in Pennsylvania in 2024.

Read Brett Samuels' full article for The Hill at this link and Jared Gans' reporting for The Hill here.

When the U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter on Monday, December 8, the three Democratic appointees — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — expressed strong misgivings about President Donald Trump's position in the case.

The "Slaughter" challenging Trump is Rebecca Slaughter, a former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Trump fired. The former FTC official is arguing that presidents shouldn't be able to fire people from independent agencies established by Congress, as they play an important role in the United States' system of checks and balances. But Trump and his allies are invoking a far-right legal doctrine known as the Unitary Executive Theory and maintain that U.S. presidents have every right to fire people from independent agencies.

MS NOW's Lisa Rubin, offering legal analysis after the hearing, characterized Kagan's position as Trump trying to make an "enormous power grab with real consequences for our country." Georgetown University law professor Paul Butler, joining Rubin and host Ana Cabrera on the panel, agreed with Rubin's analysis but predicted that the High Court's GOP-appointed right-wing supermajority will "almost certainly" rule in Trump's favor.

The New Republic's Matt Ford is also confident that the justices will side with Trump. And in an article published on December 9, he warns that U.S. consumers will suffer for it.

"Precedent is on Slaughter's side," Ford argues. "In the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners. The justices acknowledged that presidents could generally remove top federal officials at will, but argued that this power was more limited in the FTC context because agencies like it also exercised 'quasi-legislative' and 'quasi-judicial' powers. Congress has relied on that decision to structure much of the federal government over the past century."

Regardless, Ford doubts that the High Court's GOP appointees will agree with Rebecca Slaughter's arguments.

"Under the Constitution," Ford explains, "Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. To exercise these powers, lawmakers created a host of federal agencies over the years to enact regulations and enforce federal law. Some of these agencies, like the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), are directly under the president's control because he can fire the officials who lead them. Other agencies are structured to be more independent. The Federal Trade Commission, the agency at issue in this case, enforces federal antitrust law and some consumer-protection laws, with a mandate to prevent fraudulent, anticompetitive, and deceptive business practices. To ensure that the FTC operated in the interests of good government, Congress placed it under the direction of a board of Senate-confirmed commissioners and insulated them from unjustified removal by the president."

Ford continues, "This has generally been a good thing for the American people. Agencies like the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and so on have existed for roughly a century now — a century where Americans enjoyed unprecedented growth in prosperity, quality of life, and individual liberty."

But Ford warns that "the conservative legal movement" and the High Court's right-wing justices have "a much different view." And he believes that the Humphrey’s Executor standard from 90 years ago is "doomed."

Ford writes, "They favor the Unitary Executive Theory, whereby presidents should be able to wield absolute control over every aspect of the executive branch…. It is virtually certain that Slaughter will lose. "

Read Matt Ford's full article for The New Republic at this link.

During former President Joe Biden's four years in office, Donald Trump often mocked him as "Sleepy Joe" — arguing that Biden lacked the energy needed to meet the demands of the White House. But Trump, now 79 years old and ten and one-half months into his second presidency, is being dogged by reports that he is literally falling asleep on the job. Trump angrily dismisses reports on his physical or mental fitness as "fake news," but reports of the U.S. president nodding off persist.

Former GOP strategist Tim Miller addressed Trump's physical fitness during a Monday, December 8 conversation with MS NOW's Nicolle Wallace, a fellow Never Trump conservative who formerly served as White House communications director in the George W. Bush Administration. And Miller later offered more commentary on the subject in a video posted by the conservative website The Bulwark.

Wallace commented that Trump's aides are obviously not managing his schedule well if he is dozing off. Later, in his video for The Bulwark, Miller explained, "At the very end of the clip, you'll see Nicolle object somewhat to my assessment of Trump's schedule management. And basically, she's making the case that they're not managing his schedule if he's falling asleep. And I take that point."

Miller continued, "I guess the point I was trying to make is that you can see how they're trying to do it, and that you can see how they're messing with his schedule — trying to make it seem like he's out there all the time without tiring him too much. Obviously, that's not working that well, as evidenced by the dozing. But to me, the most interesting thing is just the trajectory and how you're starting to see his schedule get closer and closer to what we saw from Biden…. Fewer public events, less traveling. And, you know, we all know what they said about that. So, three more years later for him to get older and older and tireder and tireder and drowsier and drowsier."

Miller commented that he'll see if Fox News has any "Drowsy Don" segments in the days and weeks ahead.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

During his four years in the White House, former U.S. President Joe Biden aggressively championed the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and made it clear that he regarded European allies as vital to the United States' national security interests. But President Donald Trump, in contrast, is a frequent critic of the EU and NATO and a passionate defender of far-right ultra-nationalist figures like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and France's Marine Le Pen.

Trump had no kind words for the United States' longtime NATO allies in an interview with Politico's Dasha Burns posted on Tuesday, December 9.

Trump said of European leaders, "I think they’re weak, but I also think that they want to be so politically correct. I think they don't know what to do. Europe doesn’t know what to do."

Politico's Alexander Burns observes, "The broadside attack against European political leadership represents the president’s most virulent denunciation to date of these Western democracies, threatening a decisive rupture with countries like France and Germany that already have deeply strained relations with the Trump Administration."

Dasha Burns' Trump interview is generating a lot of reactions on X, formerly Twitter — and some of Politico's European readers were downright scathing in their comments.

Joe Lynam, business editor for NewstalkFM, tweeted, "On this occasion, Trump is correct. European leaders who bend the knee and lavish praise on Trump are indeed 'weak.' When will a European leader step up to the mic and say what everybody else is saying behind Trump‘s back?"

Colin Hull, a Church of England lay minister, argued, "I don't think Trump is any longer a reliable partner for Europe or anywhere else. Lost in his own mad ideology that betrays allies and is often inconsistent."

X user Edgar Kløvfjell posted, "The weakest presidents now is Donald Trump. Trump is so afraid for Putin leaking intelligence on him, he’s willing to sell his own family, USA’s friends, NATO, Europe. What he’s doing to US, NATO, Ukraine, EU, is normally done by the 🇷🇺 intelligence services globally. Thx Oslo!"

Another X user, Leo Rietdijk, commented, "Well the best for Europe is no longer invest in America. Thanks for the advice donald."

Spain-based Alessandro Nurnberg wrote, "Don't take lessons from a corrupt, ignorant wannabe dictator."

Author Bruno Maçães tweeted, "European leaders sat around Trump like little children. He now calls them weak."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

On Monday, December 8, attorney Alina Habba made a bombshell announcement: She is resigning as a federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) District of New Jersey. Habba's announcement followed a federal appeals court's ruling that she was in the position illegally.

Although Habba was appointed by President Donald Trump, she was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate. And the appeals court ruled that maneuvers to keep her in that position were not lawful. Habba, however, will remain at DOJ as an advisor to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Now, Trump is blaming Republicans for Habba's departure from the District of New Jersey.

Newsweek's Khaleda Rahman reports, "President Donald Trump has been caught on a hot mic blasting Republicans over the blocks on his U.S attorney appointments. In a widely shared video posted on X, the president can be heard speaking as members of the press are leaving an event at the White House. 'You know, I can't appoint anybody,' Trump said. 'I can't appoint anybody. Everybody I've appointed, their time has expired. Then they're in default, then we're losing."

Trump, on December 8, told reporters, "You've got a blue slip thing that's horrible. It's a horrible thing. It makes it impossible to appoint a judge or a U.S. attorney. And it's a shame. And the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves that they allow this to go on."

Rahman notes that Habba "is one of several acting U.S. attorneys around the country to have their appointments by the Trump Administration challenged on the basis that they stayed in the temporary jobs longer than the law allows."

"(Habba's) nomination faced opposition from New Jersey Democratic Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats," the Newsweek reporter observes. "The Senate's 'blue slip' tradition gives Democratic home-state senators a say in the confirmation of federal judges and U.S. attorneys nominated to serve in their state. While the process is rooted in senatorial courtesy and aimed at ensuring local input in federal appointments, critics argue it is outdated, undemocratic and enables partisan obstruction…. One of Trump's most outspoken legal defenders, (Habba) was appointed in March to serve as temporary term as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey, a powerful role charged with enforcing federal criminal and civil law. But with little federal prosecutorial experience, the state's two Democratic senators signaled they would block her confirmation in the U.S. Senate."

Read the full Newsweek article at this link.