President Donald Trump got two reminders this week about the limits of his influence.

Despite serving two terms in the White House, remaking the Republican Party in his image and wielding powers that many of his predecessors never enjoyed, Trump encountered setbacks in his efforts to extend that dominance into the cultural sphere.

The most visible moment came at Madison Square Garden, where the president was met with loud boos while attending Game 3 of the NBA Finals. Less dramatic but perhaps equally symbolic was a federal judge’s decision to reverse an effort to add Trump’s name to the Kennedy Center, forcing the institution to remove it from its branding.

The two episodes represented Trump’s attempts to influence both ends of the cultural spectrum — from the sporting event watched across the country to one of the nation’s premier cultural institutions in Washington.

A lot of people see these as distractions, an attempt to get voters riled up about a side issue while the real fights happen out of sight.

I don’t. I’ve said for years that the culture wars aren’t a distraction; they are the playbook.

Culture shapes identity. It shapes belonging. It shapes what people view as normal, acceptable and true. Long before elections are won or lost, culture helps shape the lens through which people understand politics itself.

Long before he got into politics, Trump sought that cultural legitimacy, making cameos in TV and movies, starring in pizza ads and whining when he didn’t win an Emmy. 

When he first became president, it sometimes seemed like he was more excited about the trappings of the office than the tremendous powers at his command. But even as he’s learned to flex those powers in his second term, he still seems to crave cultural legitimacy. 

That helps explain the fight over the Kennedy Center.

The battle was never really about a building. It was about what the institution represents. The Kennedy Center occupies a unique place in American civic life, and association with it carries a kind of prestige and legitimacy that politics alone cannot provide.

The same dynamic is visible in America’s upcoming 250th anniversary celebration.

This should be a moment for the country. A chance for Americans to reflect on our history, our triumphs, our failures and the unfinished work of our democracy.

Instead, the line between celebrating the nation and celebrating the president is becoming increasingly blurred.

That is not accidental.

If you can shape the symbols, institutions and narratives that define national identity, you gain influence that extends beyond any election cycle.

And the pursuit of that influence does not stop with sports, celebrities or national celebrations — it extends to the institutions that help Americans make sense of public life.

It’s no coincidence that Trump’s attempts to inject himself into the nation’s cultural discourse are happening as so many of its institutions are under attack, from CBS News to the Smithsonian to our most prestigious colleges. 

Trump may have his own personal reasons for craving this legitimacy, but the movement behind him understands its power.

If a political movement can control which facts are reported as news, whose history is highlighted in our museums and what perspectives we’re taught at our colleges, it will have control over our culture itself. 

That control is ultimately about determining whose story gets told. Who gets to define what is considered true and what is treated as normal. Who gets heard, and who does not.

Don’t forget to subscribe to “MS NOW Presents: Clock It,” Symone Sanders Townsend’s new podcast series with Eugene Daniels on the latest political news, the catchiest cultural moments and how they converge. Listen to the latest episode here.

The post The culture war isn’t a distraction. Trump really wants to win it. appeared first on MS NOW.

“On July 17, 2025, at around 6 o’clock in the evening, President Trump’s top officials filed into the White House Situation Room.” Thus begins the latest article based on New York Times correspondents Maggie Haberman’s and Jonathan Swan’s upcoming book about the Trump White House. The officials, according to the Times’ reporting, did not use the Situation Room to discuss a terrorist threat or a looming war, but “a very different kind of crisis threatening to engulf the presidency: the Epstein files.” Haberman and Swan chronicle how many senior Trump officials thought the issue would blow over with his MAGA base, only for Trump to reluctantly sign a bill ordering the files’ release.

The same day the Times published Haberman and Swan’s article, Rep. Nancy Mace, one of just a few Republicans who forced a vote on that bill, finished fifth in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Republican voters may have convinced the White House last year that they wanted to see some accountability regarding Epstein, but their actions since have shown considerably less interest in justice.

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll found 66% of Republicans agreed that “the federal government is hiding information about the clients of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.”

Drawing from hundreds of interviews conducted for the book, Haberman and Swan report that “senior officials, including [White House chief of staff Susie] Wiles and [then-deputy chief of staff James] Blair, were initially unconvinced about the reach of the Epstein crisis.” They believed the story was “amplified by noisy online influencers who didn’t represent a meaningful bloc of voters.” Others, like Vice President JD Vance and FBI Director Kash Patel, insisted the story carried far more weight.

The latter group was correct. First, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s handout of binders to conservative influencers backfired when it turned out almost all of the binders’ contents had been previously released. A July 2025 Justice Department memo attempting to close the case made things even worse. “By late summer,” Haberman and Swan write, “it was plainly apparent to the president’s top aides that the Epstein saga was not the same as the countless other crises they had weathered during their service to Trump.” In November, a discharge petition for a House bill to force the release of the files reached 218 signatures – 214 Democrats and four Republicans. Within a week, Trump reluctantly signed the bill.

“The Epstein crisis had exposed something that some of Trump’s closest advisers spent months refusing to see,” Haberman and Swan conclude. “He could not, it turned out, make Jeffrey Epstein disappear.” The Justice Department released millions of documents, with embarrassing revelations for Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Just this week, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found 66% of Republicans agreed that “the federal government is hiding information about the clients of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein,” while 82% agreed the files “show that powerful people in the U.S. are rarely held accountable for their actions.”

But Mace will not be in the next Congress; she says her push for the Epstein files bill cost her Trump’s endorsement. Nor will Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., the main GOP mover behind the discharge petition; he lost to a Trump-backed opponent in the most expensive primary in House history. A third signer, former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., resigned earlier this year. Only Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Col., will remain – but not for lack of trying of Trump’s part. The president threatened to withdraw his endorsement of Boebert after she campaigned with Massie, but the filing deadline for Colorado’s primaries has passed.

Each of the three departures, in isolation, can be blamed on factors besides the Epstein files. Massie frequently broke with his party on many issues, and pro-Israel groups spent millions against him. Greene clashed with Trump on tariffs and foreign policy, and by the end seemed most interested in securing her congressional pension. Mace faced difficult odds in the gubernatorial primary, and public incidents like a confrontation with Charleston International Airport staffers did not help her campaign.

Does that mean Trump will weather this storm? It’s too early to say.

Taken together, though, the pattern is impossible to ignore. Meanwhile, more than two million Epstein files are still unreleased — and lawmakers have questioned the extensive redactions to the 3.5 million that have been released. And in the same Reuters/Ipsos poll where 66% of Republican voters say the federal government is currently concealing information about Epstein’s clients, 69% agree that “it’s time for the country to move on from talking about the Epstein files.”

For months, it seemed that the files might be the rare instance where the Republican base broke with the president. But the primaries suggest otherwise.

Does that mean Trump will weather this storm? It’s too early to say: Democrats are likely to take at least one house of Congress this year, and the investigative powers that come with the majority. But Republican voters are happy to let him captain the ship, even if it sinks.

The post GOP voters pick Trump over Epstein victims appeared first on MS NOW.

The Tea Party movement in the early 2010s was, at its core, a lot of things — some noble, some embarrassing, and some that involved people dressed as colonial militia members in an Applebee’s parking lot shouting about the Federal Reserve. But beneath the tricorn hats and misspelled protest signs was a genuine constitutional anxiety: that President Barack Obama was accumulating executive power in ways that should frighten anyone who had read past the preamble.

When Obama left office, The New York Times noted he had “sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping assertion of executive authority and a canon of regulations that have inserted the United States government more deeply into American life.”

The authors observed Obama had resorted to “bureaucratic bulldozing,” and “once Mr. Obama got the taste for it, he pursued his executive power without apology, and in ways that will shape the presidency for decades to come.”

Now we have “No Kings,” and the wheel has turned. The same energy that had conservatives dressing up as founding fathers 16 years ago is now manifesting as progressive protesters holding signs with crowns crossed out in red. And, again, there is a real constitutional anxiety underneath it — there is no doubt President Donald Trump’s behavior is genuinely more lawless, more contemptuous of institutional constraints, and more brazenly self-interested than what Obama or Biden were doing. But it also has deep roots in the administrations of Democratic presidents of yore.

So both sides are right about the problem. They are just selectively right about it.

Obama’s use of executive action to, for example, grant effective legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants through DACA was not a law passed by Congress — it was a president deciding that certain laws simply would not be enforced against certain people. His administration’s aggressive use of “guidance documents” to effectively rewrite federal regulations without going through the notice-and-comment process that actual rulemaking requires was a deliberate end run around legislative accountability. Tea Partiers screamed about this constantly, and then proceeded to nominate and elect Trump, who immediately demonstrated that the executive pen Obama had wielded could also be used to make policy more to their liking.

But here is the problem that the No Kings movement has yet to answer: if consolidating power in the executive branch is the definition of “king-like” behavior, why is the proposed Democratic remedy more consolidation?

Both sides are right about the problem. They are just selectively right about it.

President Joe Biden used executive action to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt — a massive transfer of wealth that Congress never authorized, affecting tens of millions of people — enacted entirely by presidential decree. When the Supreme Court told him he couldn’t do this, his supporters treated the ruling as an outrage rather than as the constitutional system functioning as designed. The logic for the past three presidents has been uniform: Congress won’t act, so the president must. That is not a constitutional principle. It is an argument for whatever executive you happen to prefer.

The problem is that presidential power is a ratchet. Each turn is very difficult to reverse. When Obama normalized the use of DACA-style executive action, he didn’t create a policy — he created a template. Trump used that template. Biden used it again. And now, as Democrats begin assembling their 2028 primary field, the candidates positioned to lead the party are not running on restoring congressional authority. They will run on promising to do more of everything, faster, by executive action, because the legislative process is slow and the opposition is obstructionist and there are problems to solve right now.

They will promise, in other words, to be better kings.

Take, for instance, Gavin Newsom, who, as governor of California, issued executive orders banning gasoline cars, regulating AI data centers to protect the state’s workers, and directing cities to clean up homeless encampments. The man knows his way around a unilateral order.

This is the trap that the No Kings energy is in danger of walking directly into. The movement’s implicit theory seems to be that executive power is acceptable when deployed for acceptable ends — forgiving debt, protecting immigrants, expanding benefits — and becomes tyrannical only when deployed by someone with different values. This is not a principle. This is a preference dressed up as a principle, which is exactly what the Tea Party was doing when they decided Obama’s phone and pen were an imperial scepter (though conservatives stayed mostly silent as Bush expanded surveillance and presidential war powers in the years prior).

If No Kings is going to be more than a slogan — if it is going to be the genuine constitutional reckoning that this moment arguably requires — it has to mean something beyond “no kings who disagree with me.” It has to mean reducing the power of the office itself, restoring congressional authority, and accepting that the policies you want might have to actually pass through the legislature to become law.

Otherwise, you’re not opposing the throne. You’re just auditioning for it.

The post Democrats seem to be missing the point of ‘No Kings’ appeared first on MS NOW.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that a “swift and lethal kinetic” U.S. strike has killed Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, whom he called “the infamous leader” of the Tren de Aragua gang.

Tren de Aragua has been labeled by the United States as a terrorist organization. Guerrero Flores was charged in a New York federal court with racketeering conspiracy and other crimes, including lending support to terrorists in crimes that stretched more than a decade, authorities announced in December.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X that the strike occurred earlier in the week on a Tren de Aragua compound in Venezuela.

U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said at the time that the gang is responsible for countless acts of violence, extortion and drug trafficking in North America, South America and Europe. Trump nominated Clayton on Thursday to be director of national intelligence.

The U.S. State Department had offered rewards of up to $5 million for information leading to Guerrero Flores’ arrest.

In a post on his social media site, Trump wrote, “Tren de Aragua terrorists no longer have safe haven in Venezuela or anywhere else and, under my leadership, we will find these vicious murderers and drug lords anytime, anyplace, and send them to the depths of hell where they belong.” Trump’s post referred to Guerrero Flores by his alias, “Niño Guerrero.”

The post also included unclassified video, shot from above, of a small building with a green roof exploding.

Hegseth said, “The operation underscores the shared U.S. and Venezuelan commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists and deny them any safe haven in our hemisphere.”

Venezuela’s government released a statement confirmed its participation in the operation and revealed it took place in the southeastern state of Bolivar.

“During the operation, clashes occurred with members of criminal groups, resulting in the death of Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, alias ‘Niño Guerrero,’ the leader of one of these criminal organizations,” according to the statement.

The mineral-rich state, which borders Brazil and Guyana, is home to large illegal mining operations long controlled by gangs and other actors who mine with the consent — and to the benefit — of officials and the military.

Trump has taken a series of extraordinary actions against the gang, including a series of strikes on small boats his administration has accused of smuggling drugs to America. At least 207 people have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea since the Trump administration began targeting those it calls “narcoterrorists” in early September.

Trump and administration officials have consistently blamed Tren de Aragua for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some U.S. cities. The president spent months repeating the claim — contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment — that Tren de Aragua had operated under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control. The U.S. whisked Maduro out of Venezuela to face U.S. drug charges in January.

Tren de Aragua originated more than a decade ago at an infamously lawless prison with hardened criminals in Venezuela’s central state of Aragua. The gang has expanded in recent years as millions of Venezuelans migrated to other Latin American countries or the U.S. in search of better living conditions.

Guerrero Flores returned to the prison in Aragua for murder and other convictions in 2013, when Venezuela’s crisis began as corruption, mismanagement and a drop in crude prices wrecked the oil-dependent economy. Guerrero Flores and a few other inmates saw a profitable opportunity as the government neglected prisons.

They assumed control and administration of the prison, establishing a system that controlled the entire inmate population through force and extortion. Over time, they transformed the facility into a sort of city that included a zoo, baseball field, casino and restaurants. Guerrero Flores had his own lavish suite.

The size of the gang is unclear. Countries with large populations of Venezuelan migrants, including Peru and Colombia, have accused the group of being behind a spree of violence in the region. Still, unlike other criminal organizations from Colombia, Central America and Brazil, Tren de Aragua has no large-scale involvement in smuggling cocaine across international borders, according to InSight Crime, a think tank that tracks crime across Latin America.

In Venezuela, gang leaders have long been known to participate in various illegal activities, including gold mining and drug trafficking.

The legal mining of gold and other minerals is a component of the Trump administration’s phased plan to turn the crisis-wrecked country around. In March, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum told reporters during a visit to Venezuela that the government of acting President Delcy Rodríguez was giving security assurances to mining companies interested in investing in the South American country.

Trump campaigned for a second term promising to crack down on immigration and crime. While polls show his favorability ratings have sagged on his handling of the economy, immigration remains Trump’s strongest issue, according to the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

The post Trump says U.S. strike killed leader of Tren de Aragua gang with help from Venezuela appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* Stay tuned: “After a week of strikes between Iran and U.S. forces, President Donald Trump said the two countries are finalizing an agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He said that a possible deal could be signed ‘maybe over the weekend in Europe.’”

* In related news: “On a background call with reporters, a senior administration official placed their confidence about a deal being reached at ‘80%, 85%’ and added that leaders ‘expect to be signing this agreement over the next few days.’”

* This ruling extends a related court order from two weeks ago: “A federal judge in Virginia on Friday extended her block on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals who believe they were victims of an alleged ‘weaponized’ federal government.”

* At the Kennedy Center: “A federal judge on Friday struck down a last-ditch attempt by the Kennedy Center’s board to keep President Donald Trump’s name on the building.”

* The White House was no doubt far more satisfied with these proceedings: “A federal judge refused to halt the UFC Freedom 250 cage fights set for this weekend at the White House, despite a lawsuit that called the event a ‘volcano of corruption’ that will mark ‘the first private, for-profit sporting event ever held on White House grounds.’”

* The administration continues to find new ways to make Vladimir Putin happy: “The United States plans to significantly reduce the aircraft and warships that it makes available for NATO operations in Europe, according to two senior European officials, accelerating America’s effort to scale down the protection it has offered to European allies for eight decades.”

* Remember when Trump pretended to express sympathy for Iranian dissidents and activists? “The Trump administration is preparing to deport nearly two dozen people to the Central African Republic on Thursday, including at least two Iranian women who had sought refuge in the United States, according to lawyers and a government official. The flight, which is also expected to include migrants from Afghanistan and Syria, would mark the first such deportation to the Central African Republic, a deeply impoverished country that has been plagued by conflict.”

* On the National Mall: “Federal authorities are investigating the origin of large writings spelling out ‘86 47’ that appeared Thursday on the National Mall lawn. U.S. Park Police responded to a report of vandalism on the west lawn of the Washington Monument, where the numbers ‘86 47’ were marked in the grass.”

* Already? “When renovations of the Reflecting Pool were completed last week, President Donald Trump praised its ‘beautiful, clean water.’ Under his predecessors, Trump said, the pool was ‘Terrible. Disgusting … garbage ridden.’ Now, days after the pool was refilled, clumps of green algae have been spotted throughout the water.”

* This whole endeavor has suffered a series of embarrassments: “The Trump Mobile T1 phone, originally marketed as ‘Made in the USA,’ is nearly identical to the two-year-old HTC U24 Pro, a phone made by the Taiwanese company HTC using Chinese parts, according to a technical analysis the repair-guide and parts company iFixit conducted in partnership with NBC News.”

* I feel this one serves as a compelling metaphor: “President Donald Trump vows to ‘make America healthy again.’ But one of Trump’s golf courses risked making patrons sick, New York state health records indicate. A Dutchess County health inspector flagged the Trump National Golf Club Hudson Valley in Hopewell Junction, New York, for a ‘critical violation’ at its restaurant, according to New York State Department of Health inspection records from April 16.”

Have a safe weekend.

The post Friday’s Mini-Report, 6.12.26 appeared first on MS NOW.

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. The Supreme Court these days is generally in the business of helping executions go forward. But on Thursday night, the court did something notable: It told Alabama no.

Even then, the court wasn’t unanimous. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the refusal to let the nitrogen gas execution of Jeffery Lee proceed.

What prompted the rare rejection? In line with the typical shadow docket practice, the court didn’t explain itself. Nor did the dissenters, who merely noted their disagreement.

But a deeper look at the case helps us understand why a majority of the court was unwilling to help the state this time.

A Trump-appointed judge had permanently blocked Alabama from killing Lee using the nitrogen method, due to the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In her ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Emily Marks made it clear that she wasn’t stopping officials from executing Lee for the 1998 murders of Jimmy Ellis and Elaine Thompson. Rather, she was only barring the nitrogen method while leaving the state free to use others, such as a firing squad.

Yet the state still pressed to execute Lee with nitrogen on Thursday. The next roadblock it hit was a divided appellate panel, which declined to lift Marks’ injunction. Trump-appointed Judge Robert Luck dissented, stressing the high bar the justices have set for Eighth Amendment claims and accusing Lee of delaying his claim until the last minute. Luck noted that Lee’s victims didn’t get to choose how they died.

The appellate dissent reflects the Supreme Court majority’s view on capital punishment. So, when Alabama filed an emergency application to the justices on Thursday, it felt like the setting of a familiar scene: A lower court halts an execution, only for the high court majority to let it move forward. We have seen this movie before.

Plus, the court previously permitted nitrogen gas executions in Alabama. In the case of Anthony Boyd last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lamented the majority’s refusal to extend him what she called “the barest form of mercy,” which she said would have been letting him die by firing squad, which “would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to 4 minutes.” She issued a similar dissent the year before in the case of Kenneth Smith, which she concluded “with deep sadness, but commitment to the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.”

Lee’s case was different, as his lawyers and a key outside advocate explained to the justices. His lawyers said it was “unlike every previous method of execution challenge that this Court has considered.” They said that unlike prior cases where lower courts issued temporary stays for inmates, this one had a permanent injunction that followed “a full three-day bench trial on the merits — the first such trial anywhere on the constitutionality of nitrogen asphyxiation.”

That key outside advocate was Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court expert who filed an amicus brief. He said Alabama was trying to do something procedurally that it shouldn’t be allowed to do. “After all,” Vladeck wrote, “allowing Alabama to execute Mr. Lee through a grant of emergency relief would necessarily frustrate this Court’s ability to conduct plenary review of the district court’s final, permanent injunction.”

To be clear, the justices can still reverse Marks’ ruling in a future round of litigation. Or, as the judge noted, the state can execute him by other means. The question on Thursday night was whether the court would make the case moot by letting Alabama execute Lee before the state’s appeal could be fully vetted in an orderly fashion. With that in mind, it would almost be unremarkable that the court rejected the state’s emergency application, if it weren’t for the fact that the justices had previously intervened to help governments conduct executions over lower courts’ objections.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing is that three justices voted to let Lee’s execution go forward as planned, its unconstitutionality notwithstanding. Of course, while none of the justices explained their views, we can presume that the three dissenters are prepared to disagree with the lower courts’ constitutional analysis if and when the case comes back to the high court.

Next week, the justices are set to issue another round of opinions from cases argued this term, as we creep toward the end of June, when some of the court’s most contentious decisions have historically come.

Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them through this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.

The post Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wanted an execution that a Trump judge deemed illegal appeared first on MS NOW.

Ex-reality TV star and MAGA-backed Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt angrily conceded the race Friday in a combative video in which he derided, and appeared to threaten, the women who finished ahead of him.

Nearly four days after The Associated Press projected Councilmember Nithya Raman will advance to the November general election to face incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, Pratt announced that “the campaign portion of my mission to save Los Angeles is coming to a close, and I’m moving on to the next, more interesting phase.”

With 99% of ballots counted as of Friday, the AP put Pratt in third place, with just more than a quarter of the vote — 3.5 percentage points behind Raman and nearly 9 points behind Bass.

Saving LA – Phase III pic.twitter.com/9n9wv1tonZ

— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) June 12, 2026

Pratt initially stood in second as returns came in on primary night, but his lead over Raman steadily narrowed as mail-in ballots were counted. By Sunday, she had overtaken him by less than 1 percentage point.

President Donald Trump and other MAGA supporters suggested Pratt’s apparent reversal of fortune proved fraud, but elections experts say it is California’s voting system, coupled with the city’s small Republican voter base, that explain his third-place finish.

What, exactly, Pratt’s next chapter in civic life will consist of is unclear. But if his Friday announcement is any indication — he called Bass and Raman “dumb and dumber” and “corrupt communists” — it will include continued attacks on his former opponents. And contrary to Pratt’s pledge that he would leave the city if he lost, he suggested he will instead stay put in LA.

“A lot of dim-witted jerks thought I was in this for a grift, that I was going to roll up and leave town if I didn’t get into City Hall,” Pratt said in the video. “Hey, morons, I didn’t get in this for political power. I got in this to expose this corrupt machine, and nothing has changed.”

Addressing Bass and Raman, Pratt added: “I will be lighting you up every single day, and now I don’t have to worry about offending CNN viewers. I don’t have campaign laws hamstringing me now. It’s war.”

Filled with expletives and images of fires, violence and homeless encampments, Pratt’s video channels the same angry populism he ran on. His Republican supporters — including Benny Johnson, Trump administration official Richard Grenell and the chair of the LA County GOP — cheered his final message as a candidate.

Best known for his role as Heidi Montag’s bad boyfriend on MTV’s “The Hills,” Pratt launched his surprise mayoral campaign in January, a year after his family home burned down in the Pacific Palisades fire. While his platform initially focused heavily on what he and his supporters characterized as the failures that led to the damage caused by the fires, Pratt expanded his campaign to focus on forcing homeless people off the streets, cleaning up alleged “fraud” in the city’s finances and saving abused dogs on Skid Row.

With his massive online following and social media savvy, Pratt catapulted himself from long-shot candidate to one who earned Trump’s support and managed to outraise both Bass and Raman.

In the video, Pratt also said he possesses “some recordings of one of your exalted candidates doing and saying something that would make her resign in shame.”

A spokesperson for Raman’s campaign declined to comment to MS NOW on Pratt’s message. Spokespeople for the Bass campaign did not immediately respond to MS NOW’s request for comment.

The post Spencer Pratt concedes LA mayoral race with combative message appeared first on MS NOW.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama on Friday pledged to move forward with negotiations on a controversial luxury coastal resort linked to Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, that is set for construction on the country’s only island.

The deal has sparked protests in Albania, with some calling for Rama’s resignation. But in an interview Friday with MS NOW, the prime minister waved off such criticism as “ideological bulls—.”

He told MS NOW that “negotiations” for the property were still ongoing and dismissed concerns of any conflict of interest, insisting talks began before President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year and that Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, was not acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

“When Jared Kushner and Ivanka came here and we started work together, it was not clear if Trump would go to jail or go to the White House,” he said, appearing to refer to Donald Trump’s legal battles ahead of the 2024 election.

The project, backed by Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, will cost an estimated $1.6 billion. It involves the construction of dozens of hotels, apartments and villas along the country’s western coast. A larger development is planned for the Narta Lagoon area, home to a wildlife reserve, and a smaller resort is set to be built on the uninhabited island of Sazan, a former communist-era military base.

Ivanka Trump said she and her husband first came across the location by accident while on a trip in 2021. “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim,” she told podcaster David Senra last month. “Effectively, that’s how we found it. We swam to the island. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way up to the top, and we were just captivated.”

In response to the construction, protests have broken out in the country’s capital, Tirana, where tens of thousands of residents have marched through the streets proclaiming, “Albania is not for sale.” Many demonstrators have carried cut-outs of flamingos, a species whose habitats they say will be destroyed if the project goes through.

Rama stressed that the deal included other parties besides Kushner’s firm. He said the “incredible team of investors” was “not coming to Albania to destroy” but “coming to build” and suggested his country was being used as a pawn to attack the Trump administration.

“Don’t come here to fight with Trump. It’s not your fight,” he said. “You want me to believe that suddenly the American media, the American influencers, the American world is caring about some flamingos in Albania?”

Earlier this month, Albania’s anti-corruption agency opened a probe into how the investment firm was granted the right to the land, which was previously designated a protected area.

Redi Muçi, a member of parliament from the left-wing party Lëvizja Bashkë (Movement Together), said the agreement between the Kushner-backed firm and the Albanian government “looks like political and financial corruption” because “there is no competition.”

“It’s very fashionable to use all these words,” Rama said when he was asked about accusations of widespread corruption in his country.

While the protests were sparked by the Kushner-backed project, they have expanded into broader anti-government demonstrations, with many calling for Rama’s resignation.

During his interview with MS NOW, the prime minister said he would not resign and suggested, without evidence, that a “majority” of the population “wants the project.” He also said an “investment of such magnitude in tourism” would bring “a lot of income for everyone” in the country.

Construction of the development could also complicate Albania’s effort to join the European Union. On Tuesday, EU spokesperson Guillaume Mercier reminded the country, which is one of the poorest in Europe, that its entry into the coalition depends on adherence to its laws, including those on the environment.

“Albania should refrain from action that could undermine the fulfillment of the closing benchmark, and we expect the Albanian authorities to act without delay,” spokesman Guillaume Mercier said.

Rama told MS NOW he was not concerned that the construction would impact his country’s chances of joining the EU.

In the U.S., news of the resort reignited ethical concerns around Kushner’s business dealings and possible conflicts of interest. While he holds no formal government role — and is frequently referred to as simply a “volunteer” by the Trump White House — Kushner has been a key figure in the administration’s foreign policy efforts, participating in negotiations between Israel and Hamas, and more recently, in the Iran war.

He’s done so while attempting to raise billions of dollars from governments in the region for his private equity fund. After the first Trump administration ended, Kushner secured $2 billion in investment from the Saudi government, along with hundreds of millions more from other Gulf nations, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Critics have suggested foreign leaders may be using the president’s son-in-law to curry favor with Trump. Kushner and the White House have previously claimed he is abiding by all applicable ethics laws.

The post Albanian PM dismisses concerns over Kushner-linked resort: ‘It’s not your fight’ appeared first on MS NOW.

Mixed martial arts fighters parading through the chamber of the Lincoln Memorial before descending its steps for a face-off and press conference. Weigh-ins on the Ellipse. A star-spangled 90-foot “Claw” towering over the White House South Lawn. An octagon-shaped ring turned prime ad space — sponsors including Bud Light, Crypto.com and Polymarket paid substantial sums to have their names displayed — with the “People’s House” as the backdrop. Thousands of seats surround the ring where fighters will square off on Sunday for “UFC Freedom 250,” which CEO Dana White has predicted will draw “Super Bowl-type numbers.”

But behind the public spectacle are concerns about personal profit — and that President Donald Trump and his allies are positioned to benefit financially from the power of the presidency.

Trump purchased tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of stock in UFC’s parent company shortly before announcing the event last year, according to a May financial disclosure. He’s holding a $1 million-per-plate fundraiser for his top super PAC the night before the cage match. And Trump “officially designed” a line of “Trump x UFC Freedom 250” medallions, which are selling for $250 to $12,000.  

Those are just three of the ways the president stands to benefit from Sunday’s UFC event at the White House, which marks the president’s 80th birthday. 

“This is a real distillation of this administration, which is to take public property and use it for private benefit,” said Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who represented the plaintiffs who lost a court battle to stop the fight. “The danger in having corruption normalized is it will fundamentally tell the very rich and powerful that they are beyond reach of the law — and that message will extend beyond this administration.”

Sponsorship packages including ringside seats are being sold for $1 million or more. Asked if any of the money from those ticket sales would go to the president or his political or private business interests, a White House official said the administration has not been involved in any cost negotiations or sponsorship discussions. 

“The federal government is not making any money on this event. UFC is funding and paying for this entire event,” the official said, adding that no taxpayer dollars would be used “outside of what would be applied towards employees’ normal duties and responsibilities.” 

Whatever the financial arrangements, historians say there’s no real precedent for any of it. 

“I can’t think of any previous president doing anything like it,” said Marc Selverstone, a historian at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. “Of course, presidents have long hosted sporting engagements at the White House, from tennis to golf to bowling to even T-ball for kids. But I can’t think of anything that’s been so commercialized as the UFC event, nor anything as publicly martial or gladiatorial.”

“Past presidents typically took extreme care to keep their private finances and business interests separate from the presidency,” said Nicole Anslover, a historian at Florida Atlantic University. “President Trump is breaking that precedent.”

The UFC fight isn’t the only construction project remaking the White House grounds this year — and it isn’t the only one where the administration has tried to control what the public sees. 

On Thursday, officials opened the UFC arena on the South Lawn for a press preview, allowing reporters to take photos and video. But they were barred from photographing or filming the demolished East Wing and the ongoing construction of Trump’s massive new ballroom nearby. One Secret Service officer even ordered a reporter to delete an iPhone photo he had taken of the construction site.

The Claw itself is also a break from precedent, Anslover said. Trump’s predecessors altered the White House grounds to accommodate personal sports hobbies — Harry Truman added a bowling alley, privately funded by friends from Missouri, and Barack Obama had part of a tennis court converted to double as a basketball court — but those were for private use, not “a massive structure to be used for public profit-making events,” Anslover told MS NOW.

The White House would not answer basic questions about how much access UFC fighters will have to the White House grounds, including whether they will emerge from the Oval Office — as Time magazine has reported — or the Executive Mansion’s Red and Green rooms for their walkouts to the caged octagon. 

The White House referred MS NOW to the UFC; the UFC did not respond to a request for comment. A White House official told MS NOW that fighters will have dressing rooms in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and make their way from that building on what’s known as the “tradesman route,” historically used by contractors and service workers. They’ll enter the venue through the Palm Room doors, the official said, which open to the Rose Garden.

As for who will tend to the fighters, the White House said the UFC is using its own medical corps to manage the contestants’ medical needs, while the White House Medical Unit will be responsible for all patrons on the Ellipse and South Lawn. 

A court filing on June 10 offered a glimpse of how choreographed the spectacle will be. According to the filing, on Friday each fighter will enter the Lincoln Memorial chamber by elevator from a lower level — accompanied by a child — before being filmed walking through the chamber and descending the steps to the press conference area. National Park Service staff, the filing notes, are also weighing a request to mount a camera on the memorial’s lighting equipment.

Jacqueline Alemany contributed reporting.

The post How Trump and his allies could profit from the UFC fight at the White House appeared first on MS NOW.

As a fan of the United States men’s soccer team since the 1980s, I have always kept my expectations about the team’s World Cup prospects pretty low.

Back in 1990, the U.S. qualified for the first time in 40 years. The Americans lost all three games, but I was just happy the team made it and even scored — twice!

Four years later, the U.S. hosted the global tournament and advanced from its group. In the first knockout round, the Americans lost to Brazil, but the 1-0 score was respectable and the crowds were record-breaking. American fans’ dream that the U.S. would become a perennial powerhouse was real.

The men’s team is approaching a quarter century of disappointing results, including missing the tournament entirely in 2018.

The first hiccup came in France in 1998 when the Americans didn’t win any of their group matches. But in 2002, the U.S. upset pre-tournament favorites Portugal, squeaked into the knockout round of 16 and comprehensively beat rivals Mexico “dos a cero.” In the quarterfinals against perennial power Germany, the U.S. outshot and outpossessed its opponent but lost narrowly after a handball on the goal line went uncalled. Young stars like Landon Donovan seemed poised to take the team even further. From minnows to the final eight — and nearly the final four — in just 12 years, glory seemed like a matter of when, not if.

Since then, all that promise has been almost entirely for naught. Sure, there have been moments, like Donovan’s last-gasp goal to win the group in 2010 or what players like Clint Dempsey and Tim Howard gave to the team, but the victory over Mexico remains the last time the men’s team has won a knockout game in the tournament. 

As the team begins its 2026 World Cup quest Friday night in Los Angeles against Paraguay, though, I am done with low expectations. 

Yes, the men’s team is approaching a quarter century of disappointing results, including missing the tournament entirely in 2018. But this edition of the USMNT has been billed as a “golden generation.” Seventeen players of the 26-man roster play in Europe’s top leagues. Teams are paying higher-than-ever transfer fees for American stars like Tyler Adams, Weston McKennie and, of course, Christian Pulisic — the first American to play in the men’s Champions League final.

With all this talent for the Americans, the mission in 2026 is simple: It’s time to put up or shut up. Anything less than a quarterfinal finish — just like in 2002 — should be seen as a failure in a vastly expanded tournament on home soil. And if the quarterfinals don’t happen, the entire U.S. men’s soccer program should consider serious reforms.

It’s not a mystery what is holding back the men’s team. “We are not developing players like the rest of the world,” Donovan said in a recent interview with Rich Eisen.

The players seem aware this is a pivotal moment for American soccer.

“Our youth soccer in this country is a disaster,” he added. “You have all these youth clubs … [that] charge you crazy fees. It’s all about winning. The kids get left behind because the clubs want to make money, the coaches want to make money, they want to win and the kids don’t develop. And now we’re seeing sorta the fruits of that, sadly.” 

The pay-for-play model, where parents like me have had to shell out thousands of dollars to develop their kids in hopes of a scholarship or a pro contract, isn’t working. 

That is not what soccer is all about. It is egalitarian. It is working class. It is a sport that anyone can pick up and play. Unless this country leans into soccer’s accessibility and makes it as affordable as possible, the USMNT will never succeed. 

Fortunately for this team, the players seem aware this is a pivotal moment for American soccer. “Everyone thinks that this thing of expectation and criticism is a bad thing. But like, if we’re worth talking about, it’s a good thing,” Adams said on the “Late Run” podcast. “Before, I think people wouldn’t even talk about the national team or talk about the players on it. Now we’re making waves at some of the biggest clubs around the world. Like, people want to talk about us. That’s fine. That’s what comes with the business, man.”

Thirty-two years after the last World Cup on American soil, the U.S. men’s soccer team has had enough time. This tournament, the expectations are different. That’s what comes with the business.

The post It’s time for the U.S. men’s soccer team to put up or shut up appeared first on MS NOW.

James Talarico is hitting back at Texas Republicans who have tried to raise the Democratic Senate candidate’s masculinity as a central issue in his high-stakes election campaign against state Attorney General Ken Paxton, slamming politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz for “throwing cheesy nicknames” around instead of focusing on issues Texans care about.

In a recent campaign ad, Paxton branded his rival as “Radical Talarico: too low-T for Texas,” referring to the Democrat’s supposed testosterone level. And during an interview with Fox News, Cruz told Sean Hannity, “I gotta say, if you were making a list of 1,000 adjectives to describe this guy, ‘masculine’ would not be one of them.”

“There’s been a lot of talk in this race about what it means to be a real man,” Talarico told MS NOW’s Jen Psaki on Thursday. “A man takes responsibility. A man upholds his commitments to his family and his neighbors. A man does what’s right, even when no one is watching.”

The Democrat shared that his idea of masculinity was shaped by his father. “Every Saturday morning, Mark Talarico would mow our lawn, whether it was rain or shine, whether he wanted to or not,” he said. “And then, without anyone asking him to, he would go next door and mow our neighbor’s lawn, because our neighbor was elderly, she was a widow. And my dad never talked about it, he just did it, because that’s what a man does.”

“Real men serve others, weak men serve themselves,” Talarico said, contrasting his father’s behavior to that of Paxton and Cruz.

“I welcome this debate about what it means to be a man, and I don’t think Ken Paxton or Ted Cruz are in a position to tell anybody what a real man is,” he added.

The former public school teacher called the attacks on his masculinity a distraction and said his critics are “throwing embarrassing, cheap nicknames at their political opponents instead of focusing on improving Texans’ lives.”

“I travel all over the state, and I get to talk with Texans from all different backgrounds, from all across the political spectrum, and Texans are struggling right now in a way that we haven’t struggled before,” Talarico continued. “And again, it’s not to afford nice things, it’s to afford the basic things, the necessities: groceries and gas and insurance and childcare, prescription drugs, higher education, housing.” 

“To me, that’s everything that’s wrong with our politics, and it’s why people are so fed up with this broken system,” he said. “It’s because it doesn’t serve them, it doesn’t actually improve their lives.”

Talarico said that because of these personal attacks, politics has started to look “a lot more like professional wrestling,” adding, “You’ve got these old guys lathered up in their fake tan, throwing cheesy nicknames at each other, and those nicknames, they don’t lower the cost of groceries, they don’t lower the cost of gas or utilities or insurance. And so I’m going to keep talking about the things that Texans actually care about.”

You can watch Talarico’s full comments in the clip at the top of the page.

The post James Talarico hits back at Cruz’s and Paxton’s ‘cheap’ attacks on his masculinity appeared first on MS NOW.

Bipartisan agreement on the Hill is all too rare. But over the past week, unlikely allies on both sides of the aisle came together to oppose the appointment of Bill Pulte to lead our nation’s intelligence community as acting Director of National Intelligence and refused to vote for an extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a controversial law which essentially allows the government to gather Americans’ private calls, texts and emails without a warrant.  

The pushback was so intense that President Donald Trump  announced a new nominee, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton, who has publicly supported several recent controversial Trump statements and initiatives, to permanently lead the office. Notably, Trump moved up Pulte’s installation as well. He will still serve as acting DNI until a permanent leader is confirmed. While Pulte is a uniquely unqualified and dangerous pick, nominating a replacement doesn’t change the fact that extending FISA in its current form, amid the rapidly expanding use of domestic surveillance, threatens all of us. 

While Pulte is a uniquely unqualified and dangerous pick, nominating a replacement doesn’t change the fact that extending FISA in its current form threatens all of us. 

 Pulte is a symptom — not the cause — of an already gargantuan and dangerously broken surveillance system. Regardless of who is leading the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, lawmakers who care about protecting Americans’ constitutional rights and security should continue to reject any extension of FISA that does not meaningfully protect our data from government misuse.  

The debate around FISA is about protecting Americans’ private data from warrantless surveillance. Normally, the government needs to obtain a warrant if it wants to access our private information. But under the current law, the government can “incidentally” collect communications through something called the backdoor search loophole. Plus, they can circumvent a warrant by purchasing our personal data from a third-party data broker, putting everything from our app and browsing data to our location history at risk in what’s called the data broker loophole. That’s essentially the same as police officers handing your landlord an envelope of cash to enter your home.  

Administrations from both parties have abused the backdoor search loophole, targeting Black Lives Matter protestors, political donors, and even members of Congress. When abusing the data broker loophole, the impact is likely farther reaching than we could ever imagine, given that the FBI, DHS, NSA, IRS, and numerous other agencies have admitted to purchasing data.  

All of this happened before Pulte was nominated. It’s why surveillance hawks have now tried (and failed) numerous times since April to pass a reauthorization of this law, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle calling for reform to close these dangerous loopholes. Would these problems get worse under Pulte, who is still set to serve as acting director until a new leader is confirmed? Almost certainly. But even under different leadership, these problems are bound to get worse, perhaps exponentially, without meaningful legislative reform.  

This ongoing stalemate in Congress is a symptom of a broader failure to protect our Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Under this administration alone, while Congress has stood by, we have witnessed a dangerous and escalating pattern of surveillance, from the destruction of longstanding privacy protections at administrative agencies across the federal government to DHS developing a vast surveillance apparatus for warrantless mass surveillance. 

This ongoing stalemate in Congress is a symptom of a broader failure to protect our Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

Yet, there are members of Congress on both sides of the aisle itching to reauthorize FISA, even if it means writing a blank check for surveillance to the administration. They are a shrinking group of lawmakers, which is why so far, a growing number of reform-minded members of Congress and a bipartisan coalition of good governance and privacy rights organizations have stopped reauthorization without reform from passing. 

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that some members of Congress have finally realized with Pulte’s nomination the grave dangers of unfettered, unconstitutional government surveillance, but feigned outrage and surrender to the administration are unacceptable. But this fight is far bigger than one individual.  

As artificial intelligence makes it even easier for the government to target individuals and communities, reauthorizing FISA without meaningful reforms would give both current and future administrations a blank check for surveillance. There’s a reason surveillance hawks are fighting tooth and nail to scare lawmakers into compliance. They know that there is real momentum for change.  

There is no democracy without privacy. If the government can use the websites you visit, people you love and associate with, and places you go against you, the result will be catastrophic to each of us and America as we know it. Closing the backdoor search and data broker loopholes would ensure that no one — neither Pulte nor the president or anyone acting in our name as a public official — can steal our private information and use it to target us.  

The post Bill Pulte is a symptom, not the cause, of our broken surveillance system appeared first on MS NOW.

This is the June 12, 2026, edition of “The Tea, Spilled by Morning Joe” newsletter. Subscribe hereto get it delivered straight to your inbox every Monday through Friday.

JOE’S NOTE

After months of promising peace deals, Iran’s leaders are finally agreeing publicly with President Donald Trump that a deal may be forthcoming. 

Iran’s foreign minister tweeted that a deal between the United States and his country has never been closer, and that members of the media should not speculate on what the terms of that agreement might be.

Vice President JD Vance has also said that Iran will not be receiving payouts or sanctions relief, but added that “economic benefits will flow” if Iran “meets its obligations.”

The devil is in the details. 

I suspect both sides will do all they can to hide whatever windfalls the Iranian government may receive from this deal. I would be surprised if the deal did not contain a big windfall for the Islamic Republic of Iran – putting them in a much better position after the war ends than before it began. 

In the meantime, let’s watch football!

ON THE CALENDAR

It’s kickoff time: The World Cup has begun. A record 48 countries are competing. If you’re not traveling to one of the host cities in the U.S., Canada or Mexico to scream “GOAL!” in person, you can still get the best of the fan experience in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Boston, Atlanta, and more. 

Also this weekend: Game 5 of the NBA Finals matchup between the Knicks and the Spurs. (From the team here at the Tea: #Knicksin5.)

Coming up for air from all of the sports? There’s more.

In New York City, the country’s historic and largest Puerto Rican Day parade begins marching down Fifth Avenue on Sunday. Celebrities Daddy Yankee and Dayanara Torres are set to make an appearance.

On the same day, Philadelphia is bringing the community together for Odunde, North America’s largest African American street festival. Expect streets packed with multiple stages, performances, workshops, and happy hours.

Adrenaline chasers, Chicago’s Red Bull Spin Off is the place for you. Teams of two will race across a floating track on custom-made flashy bicycles. Answers to your questions (about all of the above) here.

Down south, things get tropical at Miami’s “juiciest weekend”: The Annual Mango Festival at Fairchild is stocking more than 400 varieties of mango, along with smoothie bars, cooking classes, and cocktail flights.

The rhythms of jazz, R&B, and funk are pouring out of LA’s Hollywood Bowl this weekend at the Blue Note Jazz Festival. Come for Patti LaBelle and Wyclef Jean; stay for the vibes.

MAILBAG

Thank you to all our readers who wrote in this week. As always, you’re welcome to write to us anytime.

I can’t understand how grown men and women are so afraid of “King Trump” that they don’t pay attention to their constituents and yield to Trump by bowing down and kissing his feet. Maybe someone could explain to me why our Congress is so afraid of him.

—Lt. Col. (ret.) Lionel R., Bluffton, Texas

Republican politicians have been afraid of Trump for a decade because of the sway he holds over their primary voters. Both John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana lost their primary contests last month because Donald Trump endorsed their opponents.

They have now returned to the Senate, scorned men with little to lose. We’ve already seen that work against Trump’s interests, and Cornyn has predicted the next two years will be politically hellish for him. I agree.

All that being said, I can tell you that blindly following the party line and ignoring the interests of all of your constituents is a terrible way to spend your time in Congress. I was constantly pushing back against Democratic presidents, Republican presidents, and Republican leadership in my own party. And when I did, it actually made me more popular in my district because people knew I would always speak my mind, and not blindly follow the party line. 

I wish more Republicans would do that today. 

Are you concerned that, given the issues surrounding the World Cup, the calls for boycotts or moving the Olympics may light a fire against attendance in the USA in 2028?

—Anonymous

We are already seeing a real backlash to the Trump administration’s policies. As a massive soccer fan for decades, I have been looking forward to the World Cup being played in the United States. It is very unfortunate that the White House’s hateful policies have already had a negative impact on the tournament.

Here’s hoping the World Cup proves bigger than the politicians and MAGA pundits who are trying to destroy the spirit of these remarkable games. 

How do you and your team feel history will look at this time in America? What do you think will be the most egregious thing they will focus on?

—Sheila H., Clearwater, Fla.

Americans will look back on this time in much the same way we look back on the evils of the McCarthy period, the horrors of the Jim Crow era, and the darkest chapters of Watergate. 

In many ways, what is happening today is worse. Richard Nixon followed the rulings of the Supreme Court when it ordered him to turn over the tapes. Donald Trump‘s administration continues to ignore one federal court order after another. 

The greatest blight on this administration will be the internment camps that Stephen Miller and the Trump administration have placed all over America. 

They cynically believed white Americans would remain quiet while brown and Black immigrants were abused and beaten by the powers that be. 

They were mistaken.

Americans will also look back at the heroes of Minneapolis, the sacrifice of Renee Good, the killing of Alex Pretti, and the refusal of American citizens to sit back and shut up when their Constitution was being shredded and their values undermined in the pursuit of hateful policies.

They will not succeed because Americans are standing up and speaking out against this injustice, just like they did during the Civil Rights era. 

What is your secret of combining humor, irony, and serious commentary? How do you keep the show rolling?

—John F., New Orleans

That’s very kind of you to say, John. It certainly helps that we all love doing the show together, and that Willie, Mike, Jonathan, Mika, and myself see each other as more than on-air acquaintances. We are family.

I feel so blessed to have been able to spend the last two decades with these dear friends, and here’s hoping we get to spend some more time together over the next few years. 

Hope you have a great weekend!

ONE MORE SHOT

Performers dance during the FIFA World Cup 2026 Opening Ceremony before a match between Mexico and South Africa at Mexico City Stadium. 

CATCH UP ON MORNING JOE

The post You asked, Joe answered appeared first on MS NOW.

Workers on Saturday began removing President Donald Trump’s name from the facade of the Kennedy Center, after a federal judge struck down a last-ditch attempt by the board to keep Trump’s name on the building.

Scaffolding was erected Friday around a section of the building that includes Trump’s name, but shortly after midnight, the Kennedy Center asked a judge to extend the deadline until noon Eastern Time on Saturday because of thunderstorms that had swept through the Washington area, causing a delay.

In the filing, the Kennedy Center offered assurance that the “removal work is presently ongoing” and would “conclude in the early hours of the morning.”

A few hours later, workers began covering the scaffolding with tarps before they eventually started taking down Trump’s name. They packed up and left the site around 3:30 a.m., though the tarps remained, leaving it impossible to determine if all the letters had been removed.

Dozens of people spent hours Friday on the plaza in front of the Kennedy Center taking pictures and cheering occasionally as they broke into chants of “take it down.” Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex-officio board member who sued to have Trump’s name removed from the building, was spotted at one point on the plaza.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper denied the Trump administration’s request to issue a stay on his May 29 ruling while an appeal plays out. Cooper wrote that the center had already taken steps to comply with that ruling by removing Trump’s name from some of its branding ahead of the Friday, June 12 deadline.

“These efforts undermine the notion that Defendants face irreparable harm in complying with the order in full,” Cooper wrote.

The judge had previously ruled that the Kennedy Center board of trustees — whose members were handpicked by Trump and who subsequently named him chair of the board — cannot unilaterally change the center’s name.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper wrote.

The Trump administration also filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. The court did not take action.

Trump had railed against Cooper’s decision, calling the judge “crooked” and threatening to remove his involvement in the organization.

In the days that followed, the Kennedy Center’s Office of General Counsel issued notices to staff to refer to the organization by its original name. Trump’s name was dropped from the Kennedy Center website and in its communications to members.

A June 4 memo to staff from the Kennedy Center’s Office of General Counsel said email signatures, letterhead and other documents must reflect the name as “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or “Kennedy Center.”

The post Workers begin removing Trump’s name from Kennedy Center after last-minute bid to fight ruling appeared first on MS NOW.

Exactly eight years ago this week, as Sen. Bob Corker neared the end of his congressional career, the Tennessee Republican voiced his frustrations about the direction of his party, telling reporters that the GOP had become almost “cultish” toward Donald Trump.

The retiring senator added, “It’s not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to a president.”

Soon after, Donald Trump Jr. appeared on Fox News and took issue with Corker’s comment, but not in an unexpected way. Instead of rejecting the senator’s characterization, the president’s son said, “You know what, if it’s a cult, it’s because they like what my father is doing.”

In other words, if the Republican Party was starting to resemble a cult, perhaps that deserved to be seen as a good thing.

This came to mind eight years later watching Republican Rep. Troy Nehls of Texas offering his latest Trump praise.

Nehls: Donald Trump is the best thing to happen to this country in a hundred years. He was born a very special baby. I bet the doctors said, “I can tell this is a very special baby.” pic.twitter.com/wvhqRAhpNM

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 11, 2026

“Donald Trump is the best thing to happen in this country in 100 years,” the retiring congressman said. “He was born a very special baby. I bet you the doctors said, ‘I can tell this is a very special baby.’”

As ridiculous as the rhetoric was, it was hardly out of character. As HuffPost noted, this is the same Nehls who said in 2024, “If Donald Trump says, ‘Jump three feet high and scratch your head,’ we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads. That’s it.” Earlier this year, Nehls also wore a necktie with Trump’s face all over it to the State of the Union, then asked the president to sign it.

More recently, Nehls said, “I believe that Donald Trump is better than sliced bread. I think he’s almost the Second Coming, in my humble opinion.”

Such talk certainly brings to mind Corker’s concern about his party’s descent into “cultish” devotion, but Nehls isn’t alone.

Earlier this week, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said, after winning his primary race, “I want to start with a bunch of thank yous. I want to thank the big guy, God. Trump comes later. Mr. President, you’re not far behind God, but we’re going to start with him.”

Around this time a year ago, Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas similarly told Newsmax, “With Trump, all things are possible.”

Soon after, Republican Rep. Mark Alford of Missouri delivered remarks on the House floor alongside a poster board featuring images of Trump and fireworks. When he wrapped up his comments, Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts asked his GOP colleague, “Cult much?”

The relevance of the simple question lingers for a reason.

The post ‘Born a very special baby’: Republican rhetoric on Trump becomes even more cultish appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump’s name is set to be removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., after a federal judge on Friday denied a last-minute bid by the center’s board to delay removal.

Watch a livestream of the anticipated removal above.

Workers on Friday erected scaffolding to begin the process of removing Trump’s name. The Kennedy Center said in a memo to employees earlier this month that Trump’s name must be removed by Friday in accordance with U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper’s May order blocking the center’s renaming.

Some demonstrators outside the Kennedy Center could be heard chanting “take it down” on Friday.

The post WATCH: Donald Trump’s name set to be removed from Kennedy Center building appeared first on MS NOW.

The Trump administration’s highly aggressive efforts to obtain state voter rolls has, at least so far, failed spectacularly, losing in eight out of eight court fights.

But as such federal efforts continue, there’s apparently a new twist on the broader gambit related to state voter rolls. The New York Times reported:

The U.S. Postal Service has proposed a new rule that would allow it to refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that don’t turn over voter rolls to the federal government.

The rule, proposed last week, is vaguely written but appears to establish broad authority for the agency to intervene in the mail voting process. It calls on states to compile lists of mail voters that Postal Service employees would use to screen ballots for eligibility. If states refuse to comply, the agency could refuse to send their mail ballots.

Pointing to the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register last week, the Times added, “Screening mail ballots for voter eligibility … would amount to an unprecedented, and potentially unconstitutional, involvement of the federal government in the administration of elections.”

For Donald Trump, that might very well be the point.

In March 2025, just two months into the president’s second term, the Republican signed a radical executive order intended to impose sweeping changes on the nation’s system of elections. Trump, however, lacked the legal authority for such a power-grab, and his policy was rejected throughout the judiciary.

One year later, in March 2026, the president nevertheless did it again, signing another order in which he purportedly gave himself sweeping authority over the country’s elections systems. As part of the radical scheme, hatched to address a problem that does not exist, the Republican administration set out to create a citizens database, which the U.S. Postal Service would then use to limit mail-in voting.

It was widely assumed that this, too, would fail in the courts, but two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, allowed the executive order to restrict mail-in voting to stand (at least for now), ruling that the plaintiffs, the NAACP and the League of United Latin American Citizens cannot claim to have been harmed by the policy because the president’s policy had not yet been implemented.

One day after the Trump-appointed judge allowed the president’s policy to remain in place, the U.S. Postal Service proposed its new rule to require states to provide voter-level data on mail-in ballots in federal elections.

There’s still a great deal of uncertainty about how, exactly, this policy would be applied, and the legal fight is ongoing.

Indeed, the Times’ report noted recent oral arguments before a federal judge in Boston in which a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and voting rights advocates said the administration’s rule isn’t merely an unconstitutional federal intrusion into the voting process, but would also “be expensive, cumbersome and chaotic to comply with the demand to create new lists of voters and, in some cases, to change mail ballot designs, with fewer than 150 days until the 2026 general election.”

Time will tell what becomes of the fight, but that it’s even a possibility the USPS might refuse to deliver ballots unless states comply with Trump’s unnecessary demands is breathtaking. Watch this space.

The post USPS eyes new rule that would block ballots in states that balk at Trump’s demands appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge refused to halt the UFC Freedom 250 cage fights set for this weekend at the White House, despite a lawsuit that called the event a “volcano of corruption” that will mark “the first private, for-profit sporting event ever held on White House grounds.”

In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, said he rejected the plaintiffs’ emergency application because they failed “to establish both a substantial likelihood of standing and irreparable harm, and because the equities and public interest weigh against emergency relief.”

The case was brought by activist Susan Douglas and Vietnam War veteran Paul Romano, who challenged the use of the Lincoln Memorial chamber and the South Lawn of the White House. Represented by the Public Integrity Project, they alleged that the event runs afoul of federal regulations and isn’t the purely patriotic display that President Donald Trump and UFC head Dana White have portrayed.

The plaintiffs said it will “feature million-dollar VIP packages, brand placement opportunities adjacent to the Lincoln Memorial, and an exclusive broadcast on the President’s favored streaming service.” The streaming service they referred to is Paramount Plus, noting in their complaint that the UFC’s broadcast partner, Paramount Skydance, is run by Trump allies Larry and David Ellison and “has decided that no American will be able to take in this ‘celebration of America’ without first paying $8.99 plus tax for a Paramount Plus streaming subscription.”

Calling the event a “volcano of corruption,” the plaintiffs said that it “will mark an inflection point in American history.” They added, “The images it generates will one day appear in the history books — and not in the chapters about times remembered fondly.”

White said the goal is to “celebrate the 250th birthday of America” in putting on the fights among professional mixed martial artists on the South Lawn of the White House in a massive structure called “the Claw.”

The plaintiffs noted that the event coincides with Trump’s 80th birthday on Sunday and that White is a close friend and ally of the president. They said Trump is giving White and his company “what none have enjoyed before: unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial to stage a private, for-profit sports event, with all the promotional and branding opportunities that accompany such access.”

Douglas and Romano added that Trump stands to benefit directly, citing reporting that earlier this spring he bought stock in the company that owns the UFC.

They said White “has good reason to stick to his story” about the event being a celebration of America because, they observed, federal law “tightly restricts private use of the national capital’s most sacred monumental spaces, which are national parklands.”

The Trump administration said the plan is to hold a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial on Friday; a ceremonial weigh-in at the Ellipse on Saturday, followed by a concert headlined by the Zac Brown Band; and seven UFC matches to be held on the White House South Lawn on Sunday.

Defending the event, the administration called it a “collaboration” with the UFC and called the suit meritless, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the case in the first place. Rather than being truly harmed, officials said, the plaintiffs sought to “seek out that which offends their sensibilities, just so they can complain about it.”

The administration said the suit’s last-minute nature alone should defeat it, calling the timing “inexcusable” because “these events were publicly announced almost a year ago; the dates were confirmed by the White House three months ago; and site preparations have been publicly visible for weeks.” The plaintiffs insisted they “acted promptly as soon as their injuries accrued and the full scope of the event’s lawlessness became clear.”

The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered “aesthetic injuries” from the Claw’s construction and that Douglas in particular “will suffer aesthetic injury if the UFC Freedom 250 weigh-ins are permitted to occur at the Lincoln Memorial.” Douglas said she “regularly travels to the affected areas for protests and has specific plans to visit on four occasions between now and the conclusion of UFC Freedom 250, including on the nights of both the weigh-ins, June 13, and the June 14 fights.”

Romano said he “has no choice but to see the offending aesthetics, as he must frequently travel through the area for work [as a part-time ride-share driver]. He therefore has no choice but to observe the desecration of these sites.” As a Vietnam War veteran, he said he suffers “the dignitary and emotional harms that come from national memorials being used for corrupt purposes.”

But in his ruling on Friday, Mehta said the plaintiffs couldn’t show they were “directly affected” by the government’s actions.

“Even if Plaintiffs had established standing, the court still would deny emergency relief because Plaintiffs have not proven irreparable harm,” the judge went on, adding that their “unreasonable delay in filing suit” further hurt their claim. He said they waited more than two weeks after visible preparations commenced at the White House to seek emergency relief.

Mehta also said that the “for-profit elements of UFC Freedom 250 have long been known” and that the “absence of congressional approval and a NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] review is not new information.”

On the environmental front, the judge said that the plaintiffs failed to show any harm that would come from the press conference and face-offs at the Lincoln Memorial, and that the UFC estimates it will spend $700,000 to remediate grass damaged by the Claw on the South Lawn.

The judge concluded that the risk of any significant environmental damage “therefore appears remote,” whereas the harms on the government side include the time, effort and money that have gone into planning the event, as well as the interests of spectators, remote viewers and the millions of dollars the UFC and related organizations have spent.

“The potential loss of those dollars resulting from a last-minute, court-ordered stoppage cannot be ignored,” the judge wrote.

The post Judge declines to halt UFC Freedom 250 fights at White House this weekend appeared first on MS NOW.

A federal judge in Virginia on Friday extended her block on the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion compensation fund for individuals who believe they were victims of an alleged “weaponized” federal government.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s ruling extends the band-aid block she initially ordered on May 29 to prevent the Department of Justice from launching the taxpayer-funded $1.8 billion pay-out system, which critics refer to as a “slush fund.”

Brinkema requested the Department of Justice submit a sworn declaration by next week indicating it is not moving forward with the fund — and signed by both the acting attorney general and the treasury secretary. She indicated she would likely dismiss the case as moot if the administration submits the rescission in writing. If the DOJ does not provide the declaration, the legal challenge will likely continue.

“The Anti-Weaponization Fund presents an immediate and dire threat to our constitutional order and the authority of Congress,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., wrote in a brief they filed in the case, which Brinkema read aloud in court Friday.

“Indeed, among other purposes, the Fund is designed to compensate the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6th,” the senators wrote. The some 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters President Donald Trump  pardoned upon his return to the White House in 2025 are among those most likely to profit from such a fund.

Trump’s Department of Justice established the fund as part of a settlement stemming from the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The account, every penny of which comes from taxpayer dollars, would establish a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization” to “seek redress,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the time of its announcement.

But a groundswell of opposition from Republicans on Capitol Hill forced the Trump administration to back down. On June 2, Blanche announced at a congressional hearing “we’re not moving forward with the fund, period.”

Blanche’s abandonment of the fund did little to dissuade organizations that opposed the fund from pressing forward with a lawsuit to stop it. A a coalition of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and nonprofit organizations that brought the Virginia suit argued Blanche’s statements were not legally binding.

They also pointed to Trump’s continued public push for the fund after Blanche’s congressional testimony.

In one pre-taped interview with “Meet the Press” that aired June 7, Trump said, “I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved.” 

Brinkema expressed concern over Trump’s comments and Blanche’s refusal to commit to rescinding the fund in writing as reason for her decision on Friday. The president’s statements, she said, “carry a lot of weight” and represent a “pretty good indicator that there will be some incentive or motive to make it happen.”

Trump railed against Brinkema’s May 29 order that originally blocked the fund, calling her a “a radical leftist judge” in a post on Truth Social. The judge referenced that attack while speaking to an attorney for the DOJ during Friday’s arguments.

The Department of Justice has called for the case’s dismissal, arguing Blanche’s statement means there is no issue for the court to decide. The plaintiffs who brought the legal challenges to the fund have repeatedly pushed back on that assertion. 

In addressing the DOJ’s argument, Brinkema said the DOJ’s ability to voluntarily kill the fund does not usurp her authority to rule on the issue.

“[The Trump administration] should not be able to evade judicial review by temporarily altering behavior,” Brinkema said.

The post Judge indefinitely blocks Trump’s $1.8 billion ‘anti-weaponization’ fund, wants guarantee it’s dead appeared first on MS NOW.

This is an adapted excerpt from the June 11 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Flesh-eating bugs are plaguing the country. For basically the first time in 60 years, screwworm flies are popping up in farms across the American Southwest. As of now, there are a handful of confirmed cases in Texas and New Mexico, but there will almost certainly be more.

Now, if you are not a cattle rancher, the possibility of flesh-eating screwworms terrorizing American farms was likely not on your radar. That’s because when the government is doing its job — when the obscure bureaucrats who work tirelessly throughout the continent to assess risk and mitigate harm are left unimpeded, as had been the case for decades — you don’t have to worry about it.

If you are not a cattle rancher, the possibility of flesh-eating screwworms terrorizing American farmers was likely not on your radar.

The screwworm is a great example. An infestation can be absolutely devastating not just for individual animals and farms, but for the entire agriculture industry. These are flesh-eating parasites that lay their eggs in open wounds in animals, often cattle. They spread rapidly and can eradicate an entire farm’s worth of livestock. Hundreds, even thousands of these maggots can gather in one wound, and the consequences are often fatal for any mammal.

It was a huge problem throughout the American Southwest in the early to mid-20th century. And after extensive research and cooperation between the government and ranchers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture came up with an ingenious solution to eradicate the screwworm. Basically, the USDA would sterilize the males and release them into affected areas, because if enough males couldn’t reproduce, the population would eventually die out.

Now, on its face that plan may sound silly. The government wanted to spend a bunch of money to study the sex lives of insects. No one knew if it was going to work when they started. And it was not lost on the USDA scientists that this was the kind of thing that right-wingers could pounce on. 

During a 2000 interview, Edward F. Knipling, a USDA researcher who helped devise the plan, spoke about the caution the agency practiced to avoid public scrutiny from those who would claim it was “wasting money.”

“Especially since this had to do with sexual behavior, we knew that if the media got ahold of that, they could make quite a deal out of this idea of controlling an insect by sterilizing the males and releasing them,” he continued. “So we didn’t say much about running this experiment.” 

Thankfully, Knipling was allowed to continue and even expand his work.

Through sterilization and strict monitoring, we had a bubble of safety from these pests that stretched all the way down to Panama. So the problem was eradicated from this country for more than half a century. 

Then Donald Trump became president for the second time, and he tasked Elon Musk with slashing the federal budget. Musk and his small gang of 20-somethings took their “chain saw” to the entire federal bureaucracy, cutting funds for programs like Ebola virus prevention and containment. (They had to undo that one.) 

When you think about it, screwworm eradication is precisely the kind of thing that conservatives, and Musk in particular, would try to gut. In fact, in June of last year, the right-wing outlet Newsmax called for him to kill this exact program: “A government agency spending $300 million in taxpayer dollars to produce sterilized flies sounds like a dream scenario for a DOGE team looking to cut waste, fraud and abuse.”

But really, the Trump administration had already taken its chain saw to the cause of eradicating flesh-eating parasites. A headline from March of last year from Agri-Pulse: “Screwworm monitoring among foreign aid programs killed by Trump.”

Beef prices are already through the roof, and if screwworms result in the culling of multiple cattle herds and supply dwindles, that will only get worse.

However, as it turns out, screwworm monitoring was not waste, or fraud, or abuse. It was a sensible, cost-effective program to treat a really serious problem. And the Trump administration gave up on it. We stopped coordinating with Central America to monitor the situation, even as the pests were inching closer to our southern border.

So now the flesh-eating bugs are terrorizing American farmers. But this isn’t just affecting them; it is going to be your problem, too. Beef prices are already through the roof, and if screwworms result in the culling of multiple cattle herds and supply dwindles, those high prices will only get worse. 

As The Atlantic pointed out, “The screwworm program costs $15 million a year, a small fraction of the estimated $796 million a year that it saves American farmers. (That estimate, from 1996, is equivalent to 1-point-3 billion in today’s dollars.)” That article was from 2020, so that number is probably closer to $1.7 billion now. Those costs will now be transferred to you at the grocery store.

Meanwhile, one of the districts where this is happening does not even have an advocate in Washington, D.C., because Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales was forced to resign in disgrace earlier this year after it was revealed that he was having an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide. Gov. Gregg Abbott has yet to schedule a special election to replace him, so Gonzales’ former constituents are now stuck without a paddle. 

The wolves — or should I say the worms — are at the door for Texas farmers.

This is exactly the kind of problem that Knipling warned about. He said this project would be subject to undue scrutiny and cut by bad-faith actors. But Musk thought he knew better than the experts, and now it’s going to become your problem.

Allison Detzel contributed.

The post How Trump and Musk’s DOGE cuts are screwing American farmers appeared first on MS NOW.