President Donald Trump's comment about Stephen Miller during a press conference on Wednesday had people mocking the president and his deputy chief of staff, saying "well, that's pretty revealing" and calling Miller "an absolute psycho."
"I want to thank Stephen Miller... I love watching him on television. I would love to have him come up and explain his true feelings. Maybe not his truest feelings. That might be going a little bit too far," Trump said, laughing, during a news conference with FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
"But Stephen, thank you for doing an unbelievable job," Trump said. "The people of this country love you, I'll tell you, and they love what you say about crime and stopping crime," he added.
Users on social media immediately reacted to Trump's statement:
"Well, that's pretty revealing," Dan Pfeiffer, co-host of Pod Save America and former Obama advisor, wrote on X.
"They know hes a f----ing nazi man," online streamer Hasan Piker wrote on X.
"The world already knows his true feelings," Aaron Parnas, attorney and content creator, wrote on X.
"Surreal that he just knows little Himmler shouldn't be FULLY uncorked in front of a microphone because his senior advisor is simply too frightening and fascist to 100% be himself in public," podcast host Jordan Crucchiola wrote on X.
"Even *he* knows Miller is an absolute psycho..." radio host Mat Smith wrote on X.
"Yeah these motherf---ers are all Nazis," Democratic strategist Jack Cocchiarella wrote on X.
Voting rights advocate and legal crusader Marc Elias sounded the alarm about the conversation before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday about the Voting Rights Act.
Elias said the case has been heard before, but in this form, "the stakes are enormous."
"The fact is that the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case today that, to be clear, no one brought to them," he said. "The case that was brought to them out of Louisiana was argued last term, and did not challenge the underlying constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act."
He recalled waiting for a ruling, only for the Supreme Court to decide it "wanted to hear a different case."
"So, it ordered the parties to brief and re-argue a broader question — the question of whether or not section two of the Voting Rights Act remains constitutional, and if so, how does it get severely limited?" Elias explained.
That's not what the case actually deals with.
"Make no mistake, I never predict with certainty what the outcome of cases will be. You never know what the dynamics are among the justices, but this was a case that was set up to do immense damage to the crown jewel of American democracy, which is what Democrats and Republicans have called the Voting Rights Act for decades," said Elias.
What he heard from the court today, he said, was a slate of conservative justices ready to eliminate those key provisions.
"Everyone needs to be clear-eyed that that is what the court is poised to do. And if it does so, it will have a dramatically detrimental effect to Black and Hispanic and other minority voting rights. And it will also potentially tilt the balance of power going into the 2026 midterm elections."
President Donald Trump snapped back Wednesday after a reporter asked if the FBI was getting paid during the ongoing government shutdown, saying, "We got the people that we want paid!"
Trump was speaking during a news conference with FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and taking questions from reporters in the Oval Office.
Trump has blamed Democrats for the shutdown and threatened to eliminate what he calls "Democratic programs," saying that "Republican programs" would not be cut.
"Democrats and Republicans remain starkly at odds over how to reopen the government," The New York Times reports. "But unlike previous presidents, Mr. Trump has been unwilling to mediate a truce. He has opted instead to stretch the limits of his power to cushion the blow for agencies and constituencies he supports, while embarking on a retribution campaign against his political foes."
He apparently promises to release a list on Friday of "Democratic programs" he expects to cut if the government remains closed and said some of these programs would “never going to open up again,” The Times reports.
President Donald Trump said he was looking at military strikes on land in Venezuela after weeks of targeting boats off the country's coast.
While speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday, Trump insisted that the U.S. Coast Guard could not effectively stop drug traffickers.
"We've been doing that for 30 years, and it has been totally ineffective," he insisted. "Some of these boats are seriously, I mean, they're world-class speed boats, and — but they're not faster than missiles."
"Right now we have, I would say, none coming in through the seas. In fact, I don't know about the fishing industry," he continued. "We've almost totally stopped it by sea. Now we'll stop it by land."
"I don't want to tell you exactly, but we are certainly looking at land now, because we've got the sea very well under control."
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration recently authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela.
The government shutdown reached its 14th day on Wednesday, becoming the fourth-longest in history. CNN's Manu Raju warned Wednesday that the situation is getting "worse and worse."
Democrats demand that Republicans agree to extend healthcare subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"Absolutely no movement. In fact, things are getting worse and worse by the day. And [there are] real fears that this could be the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States," said Raju, noting that the longest was President Donald Trump's shutdown from 2018 into 2019. It was 35 days, or five weeks.
The talking point Raju is repeating comes from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said Monday, "We're barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history."
"There were actually some level of negotiations, some signs that one side was buckling. And in this case, there are signs that neither side is buckling, and there are no negotiations. Republicans say vote for their bill to reopen the government until November 21st," he said.
The continuing resolution is only a temporary measure that would require another funding measure again before the holiday season.
Many voters elected President Donald Trump because he claimed he would cut inflation, but that does not apply to the automobile market, according to rating agencies.
“Prepare yourself because it's literally never been more expensive to buy a new car,” said CNN analyst Matt Egan. “Kelley Blue Book says that the average transaction price in September topped $50,000 for the first time ever. That's 4 percent more expensive than the same month last year.”
Egan described this as “the biggest increase year over year since 2023," and for average-sized U.S. vehicles, the price was even higher.
“That's just the average price,” Egan said. “Say you're in the market for a full-size car, you've got to be spending an average of almost $60,000; for a full-size pickup, $66,000, and SUVs averaging $76,000.”
“So, what's behind these record-high prices? Well, Kelley Blue Book says that one factor here is tariffs,” Egan added. “Tariffs are adding to the cost of building a car. It's not just the auto tariffs. It's the tariffs on car parts and the tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper as well.”
But, by far, the biggest factor influencing new car prices is who is buying the cars, according to Kelly Blue Book. Modest-income buyers can no longer buy new cars since the November election.
“The $20,000 cars have basically gone extinct,” reported Egan. “Car makers are focusing on the higher margin, more expensive cars [because] … a lot of the cost-conscious consumers are not able to buy cars right now. A lot of them are focusing on used cars. They've been priced out of the market, but more affluent buyers are in the market, and they're buying more expensive cars. So that's pushing up the average.”
Egan said the numbers are another reminder of the “K-shaped economy” where “people who have money in the market, money in housing are doing okay and they're buying cars. But a lot of lower-income families are not buying cars right now because they're struggling to get by.”
Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) did not let the ongoing government shutdown prevent him from holding a birthday party for his dog in a Senate office building.
Correspondent Daniella Diaz confirmed that the party for Babydog Justice took place in the Hart Senate Office Building on Wednesday.
An invitation to the event promised cake and "belly rub diplomacy." The 6-year-old English Bulldog has been a fixture on Capitol Hill since Justice took office. The dog also appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention in 2024.
A long line of people was seen at the Hart Office Building waiting to get into the party.
Vice President JD Vance faulted "scumbag" reporters for leaking text messages from leaders of Young Republican groups that praised Adolf Hitler, used the N-word, joked about putting political opponents in gas chambers, and praised rape.
While appearing on the Charlie Kirk Show on Wednesday, Vance was asked about a report on thousands of text messages obtained by Politico. Prominent leaders of various Young Republican groups across the country sent the messages. Vance, however, called them "a bunch of kids."
"The stupid things that I did when I was a teenager and a young adult, they're not on the internet," the vice president explained. "Like, I'm going to tell my kids, especially my boys, don't put things on the internet. Like, be careful with what you post."
"If you put something in a group chat, assume that some scumbag is going to leak it in an effort to try to cause you harm or cause your family harm," he continued. "But the reality is that kids do stupid things, especially young boys. They tell edgy, offensive jokes."
"We're not going to allow the worst moment in a 21-year-old group chat to ruin a kid's life for the rest of time. That's just not okay."
Vance accused Politico's report of "canceling kids."
"We're all going to have to say, you know what? No, no, no. We're not doing this," he remarked. "And if I have to be the person who carries that message forward, I'm fine with it."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson clashed with a Louisiana lawyer during oral arguments on Wednesday when the court heard Louisiana v. Callais, a case on whether a majority-minority district in Louisiana discriminated against white people.
Those advocating against the district frequently argued that the plaintiffs in the case demanded a second majority-minority district, but Jackson explained that this is not the case's focus and does not constitute a retrial.
"Where in section two [of the Voting Rights Act] does it mandate another minority district?" asked Jackson. "My understanding, as I explored with Ms. Nelson, is that sectiontwo is the mechanism by which we determine equal electoral opportunity is not being provided for a certain minority group. And we've interpreted in Gingles, we've given some flesh to how one goes about identifying that set of circumstances. But I thought that's the end of it in terms of the court's announcement under section two. And then the court turns to the state and says, 'How do you want to remedy this?'"
She explained that sometimes that means adding another majority minority district, and sometimes it does not.
"Your answer to Justice Barrett was, well, everybody just knows that's the automatic remedy. So, can you help me figure out that disconnect?" Jackson asked Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana solicitor general.
"Justice Jackson, I think there's a reason why this court's voting precedents, going all the way back to Shaw 1, are so tied up with race, it is because the remedy as parties and the courts have understood section two to operate is almost always going to be race," said Aguiñaga.
"They're so tied up with race because that's the initial problem, right? That is the beginning," said Jackson, explaining how the cases were brought. "The beginning is the claim that a person makes under section two, because of their race, they are not being afforded equal electoral opportunity. It is a separate question as to how we go about remedying that..."
Aguiñaga agreed and attempted to continue going on with his statement, but was stopped in his tracks.
"Wait, why is that not a compelling interest to identify areas [where] the problem is occurring?" she asked.
Aguiñaga cited a case that allowed states to remedy the problem, but Jackson paused him again, noting that it isn't the question.
"I'm not talking about the remedy. I'm talking about identify — alright? So, if I'm right, that section two is about identifying the problem and then requiring some remedy," said Jackson. "I don't understand why your answer to Justice Kagan's question about, 'is this a compelling state interest' is 'no.' The answer is obviously yes. That you have an interest in remedying the ills of all discrimination that we identify using this tool, when you go too far in your remedy, is another issue, right?"
That's when things took a more confrontational tone.
Aguiñaga claimed that "step zero" was that the plaintiffs came in and said that they wanted another majority-minority district.
"I thought they came in and said we're not receiving equal electoral opportunity because our votes are being diluted," Jackson shot back.
Aguiñaga claimed it's saying the same thing as saying "we deserve" another district.
"It's not," Jackson shot back. "Trust me on this. Because the second district is a remedy that one could offer for a problem that we have identified. And the whole Robinson litigation was about identifying the problem. Is it really happening?"
In most cases, she said, the court says "you're fine" and "go away. In this case, the court said, I see. I'm looking at the factors. I appreciate what you're saying. You've proven that we have this problem. And so, the next question is how do we go about remedying it?"
Aguiñaga again brought up "intentional discrimination," but Jackson questioned why it even needed to be discussed, as it was not the question before them.
Madiba K. Dennie, who writes for "Balls and Strikes" called the exchange "striking."
"To me, Louisiana was basically like 'here come these Black people always asking for more' and Justice Jackson was like, 'that's not what the f--- they're asking for, they're saying: stop discriminating against us,'" Dennie wrote on Bluesky.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is drawing flak online after accusing Democrats of attacking a Capitol Police officer in what he alleged was a political stunt.
The crowd chanted "swear her in," speaking of Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who was elected a few weeks ago in a special election. Her vote will be the final signature necessary to force a vote on releasing the investigation files of Jeffrey Epstein.
"Congress passed a law to require the hanging of a plaque to commemorate the officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, which Mike Johnson has since declined to give direction to do," wrote CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dover. He added, "However," and then posted the video of Johnson from Wednesday morning's press conference.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ) questioned, "Oh really." She added a screen capture of the headline: 'A Betrayal, a Mockery': Police Express Outrage Over Trump's Jan. 6 Pardons.
"Sorry, what were you saying, Mike?" questioned journalist Dan Przygoda. He posted a clip of the Jan. 6 attack on the officers and attempted to breach the police line guarding the Capitol.
"For the 8,000th time, I’m forced to respond with ……. Like this?" asked business owner Ron Shillman, including a photo of the crowd pushing the bike racks against the police to try and break the line.
Megan Coyne, a former White House staffer, wrote, "Google 'Capitol police officer assaulted' to learn more."
Policy associate Scott Moore at the Searchlight Institute made the same point, "Look up Capitol police officer violence to learn more!"
"I think this is much worse," MSNBCcontributor Rotimi Adeoye said, posting a photo of one of the officers with blood in his mouth being smashed in a revolving door.
A video of a Chicago woman who was dragged out of her car and wrestled to the ground by ICE agents while she sat at a school pick-up line, only to be released later, infuriated an MSNBC panel on Wednesday morning.
The viral clip, posted to Instagram by Eryn McCallum, who can be heard yelling at the agents, set off a wave of angry criticism from three “Morning Joe“ hosts.
With co-host Mika Brzezinski reading a statement about that ICE assault from DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, where she claimed “ICE is not going to schools to make arrests of children. Criminals are no longer able to hide in America's schools to avoid arrest. The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense,” Brzezinski added on, “Joe [Scarborough], that shouldn't be even happening anywhere, let alone near a school.”
Co-host Scarborough then launched a furious rant
"And who thinks this is good politics? Who thinks this is good policy? They go into school pick-up lines, attack people like, according to this video, like, brutalize them and then release them!”
“Who is telling Republicans this is a good idea?” he shouted. “Not only is this thuggish, but who's telling Republicans, ‘Hey, this will really help you out in the midterms. This will help you out politically.’”
“What, 32 percent of sick people are they playing to who want to see people improperly taken out — they were released later, we are told,” he continued.
“This is crazy,” co-host Brzezinski interjected. “Who's telling the speaker [Mike Johnson] this is good politics?” Scarborough continued. “They can run around screaming illegal immigration. Americans want a secure border. Americans want people to get here legally. And at the same time: two truths. You can hold them in your hands. They don't want to see that. They don't want to see that happening in a school pick-up line.”
A grim-faced Jonathan Lemire later added, "Deeply un-American. And in that video, you can hear the screams, just like the screams in that video that the DHS shot in Chicago a couple of weeks ago during when they raided an apartment in the middle of the night with helicopters and pulled children out of their bedsbeds."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) praised Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) after a judge issued a restraining order against him under Florida's "dating violence" law.
At a Wednesday press conference, Johnson feigned ignorance after multiple reporters asked him about the restraining order.
"A judge in Florida issued a restraining order against Cory Mills for threatening, harassing behavior from an ex-girlfriend," the reporter noted. "And according to these court documents, he also instructed a congressional staffer to reach out to her after that initial temporary restraining order was found."
"Do you think this is an ethical violation, and do you think any disciplinary action is warranted?"
"I have not heard or looked into any details of that," Johnson insisted. "We have a House Ethics Committee; if it warrants that, I'm sure they'll look into that."
"Mr. Speaker, it's been reported for a while," a second reporter observed. "Cory Mills was accused of beating a girlfriend in his D.C. apartment. He was accused of stolen valor by the people that he claimed to have saved on the battlefield that have been on the record said that he did not save them."
"I mean, this has been happening since the beginning of the year," she added. "Are you concerned about these allegations against Cory Mills?"
"Look, you have to ask Representative Mills about that," Johnson shrugged. "I mean, he's been a faithful colleague here. I know his work on the Hill."
"I mean, I don't know all the details of all the individual allegations and what he's doing in his outside life," he remarked. "You have to ask him about that. Let's talk about the things that are really serious."
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) gave his morning press conference, where he accused Democrats of attacking a Capitol Police officer.
Democrats didn't steal their equipment and hurt them with it or shoot them with bear spray, Johnson said that a Democrat yelled.
"Last night, they played some games. They stormed my office. I saw some of the video online. They themselves shared, or someone did. They berated a Capitol police officer, screamed at him. He was merely standing his post. It shows, again, their disdain for law enforcement, as we see all around the country, the Democrats, in that party, screaming, assaulting ICE officers. They did it right here in the Capitol last night."
Johnson claimed, "A few members of Congress went into the little foyer of my office and tore down a sign that I had up and just engaged in all sorts of political stunts and antics. They've been doing that every day now and it shows their desperation. It also shows a very strongcontrast between the party thatis working for the people andtrying to keep the governmentopen and do the right thing inthe party that is engaged in allthis nonsense."
Johnson announced earlier this year that he would not "second-guess" the pardons of the Jan. 6, 2021, attackers who severely injured Capitol Police and Metro PD officers.
Johnson later said, "We've always stood with Capitol police and law enforcement. We've shown that in word and deed."
