Trump ally Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was issued a blunt fact check Wednesday on Fox News after attacking New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani with a false claim.
On Tuesday, ahead of his address to the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu released a video on social media condemning the progressive New York mayor, vowing to expose the Democratic socialist for “inciting violence” against Jewish Americans.
“Shame on you Mr. Mamdani! Shame on you for supporting the Hamas terrorist monsters who butchered our people!” Netanyahu said. “Shame on you for inciting violence against New York Jews! I'm coming to the U.N., I'm gonna tell the truth about our heroic soldiers, and I'm gonna tell the truth about you!”
Netanyahu’s remarks were discussed Wednesday morning on “Fox & Friends,” with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade asking his colleague Trey Yingst, reporting live from Tel Aviv, Israel, about the spat: “He made it clear he's not happy with Mayor Mamdani, right?”
“He did, he released a video saying that Mayor Mamdani strongly supported Hamas, which... isn't true,” Yingst said.
“We do know that [Mamdani] condemned Hamas and called the Oct. 7 attack a war crime, but the Israeli prime minister certainly doesn't agree with the characterization of what followed after the Oct. 7 massacre and some of the comments that were made by the New York mayor. So we may hear some of that in those remarks today at the U.N.”
Netanyahu has called President Donald Trump “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House,” and boasted about having “almost daily conversations” with Trump during the second Trump administration. Netanyahu is expected to address the U.N. on Wednesday, just one day after Trump threatened to “annihilate” Iran during his U.N. address on Tuesday, remarks that The New York Times’ Farnaz Fassihi described as a clear threat to carry out a “war crime.”
Israeli PM Benjamin Netenyahu’s smear against NYC Mayor Mamdani fact-checked by Fox News’ Trey Yingst
“He released a video saying that Mayor Mamdani strongly supported Hamas, which... isn't true.” pic.twitter.com/LTEZgk6FPR — Alexander Willis (@ReporterWillis) September 23, 2026
Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) wants Congress back in Washington, but experts and critics pointed out that it's a curious ask from a lawmaker whose own party leadership shipped everyone home until after the midterms.
The Iowa Senate candidate, already reeling from backlash over her Iran war flip-flop, posted Tuesday that "The House should return to DC immediately to work to pause diesel exports, suspend the gas tax, fully unleash E15 and biodiesel, and work on a diesel relief program for truckers and farmers. Americans need relief and I'll work with anyone to deliver." She was responding to an Axios report that Trump now backs a ban on diesel exports.
It's the latest reversal from the representative, and political insiders suspect internal polling is the cause. Hinson spent months privately calling the war a "political liability" while publicly shrugging it off as "out of sight, out of mind," then pivoted to demanding it end after she'd voted six times to let it continue. Now she's demanding Washington reconvene, days after Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters "the House has done its work" and sent members home to campaign — with Hinson's blessing at the time.
Critics wasted no time. The Lincoln Project needled her twice, first asking "Those internal polls must look crazy, huh?" then reminding her "You voted for this. SIX times. Iowa, vote her out." Anti-Trump GOP strategist Sarah Longwell agreed that the "internals must look scary."
Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu had a simpler suggestion: "Um, have you tried calling your GOP Speaker?" Radio veteran Jamie Dupree made the same point, noting GOP lawmakers "were sent home until after the elections by their own leaders" and now want back in to handle "affordability issues that Republicans avoided in 2026."
Journalist Adam Carlson zeroed in on the timing, asking whether Hinson "just discover[ed]" record diesel prices or "just started caring" after "terrifying internal polling over the weekend." AIPAC Tracker piled on with the reminder that Hinson has voted against ending the Iran war four times this year. GasBuddy's Patrick De Haan and Vox's Matthew Yglesias mocked the substance itself, with Yglesias simply writing: "lmao 'fully unleash E15 and biodiesel.'"
Former prosecutor Ron Filipkowski put it most bluntly, calling the statement "performative nonsense to distract from the damage her own votes did to her constituents thanks to the cult leader she obeys."
With the midterms just 42 days out, Senate Republicans are facing their own version of the House GOP's great escape — and they can't decide whether to stay and fight or just go home, according to new reporting.
"Anxious" Republicans see little chance of passing anything meaningful before Election Day and are stuck with a "fight or flight" choice, Politico reported on Wednesday.
House Republicans have already bailed on Washington until after the Nov. 3 vote, while the Senate spends this week on a bipartisan bill overhauling college sports — hardly the affordability fix voters are demanding as they increasingly blame President Donald Trump for their financial pain.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) summed up the party's paralysis when asked about cost-of-living legislation. "If there was something that we could get done that would help, I'd be all for it," Cramer said. "But I don't know what it would be at this point."
"Should they leave, Republican senators would be essentially standing pat with their legislative record, even with voters clamoring for more help while blaming Trump in a spate of recent polling," Politico reported.
Staying in town means senators must keep facing reporters' questions on the Iran war, soaring energy prices, Trump's White House media ban, and revelations a Russian oligarch bankrolled his son's wedding — "Trump-related controversies" GOP lawmakers would rather keep at arm's length.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) isn't ready to give up on legislating, though.
He called it "stupid" not to push through the procedural hurdles to get Sen. Jon Husted's college sports bill to a vote. "When moms and dads lie down and sleep at night, and can't, they're not lying there worried about the football coaches, they're worried about the cost of living," Kennedy said. "It's foolish both policy-wise and political-wise not to put it on the floor. … I wouldn't faint with surprise if Senator Thune said, 'Y'all go home.'"
The dilemma underscores just how thin the GOP's pre-election playbook has become with control of Congress on the line.
President Donald Trump urged Republicans to treat the midterms as a referendum on him. A new poll suggests many voters plan to do exactly that – just not the way he hoped.
"I'm asking you to pretend that I'm on the ballot," Trump told Republicans at an unprecedented midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month, but a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll found a plurality of registered voters, 45 percent, say their vote for Congress is a vote against Trump.
That includes roughly four in five Democrats and about half of independents, but about a quarter say their vote is meant to support the president, including 59 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of those who voted for Trump in 2024. About a third say Trump isn't much of a factor.
Overall, voters prefer Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a 53-to-41 margin, and that 12-point edge is a 13-point swing from Trump's 2024 popular-vote margin. It helps explain why Democrats are competitive in Senate races in Ohio, Alaska, Iowa and Texas – states Trump won by 11 to 14 points.
The poll also points to an enthusiasm gap. Compared with Kamala Harris voters, Trump's 2024 voters are less likely to say they're closely following the midterms and less likely to care who controls Congress. They are also less likely to have been contacted by someone urging them to vote.
Trump's own standing remains near record lows. Just 39 percent approve of his job performance and 59 percent disapprove. The 53 percent who strongly disapprove is the highest share recorded across both of his terms, and his favorability has slid from 44 percent in January 2025 to 37 percent in the latest poll.
Republicans have also lost ground on issues that have long been party strengths. Voters now narrowly favor Democrats on immigration, 41 percent to 38 percent. In February 2024, Republicans led on the issue 42 percent to 30 percent.
Democrats also lead on the economy (42 percent to 38 percent), foreign policy (42 percent to 36 percent) and gas prices (40 percent to 27 percent), as the Iran war drags on and fuel costs climb.
Some Republican candidates are already distancing themselves from the president.
Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) released an ad telling Trump that "some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far," and this week, Senate nominees Ashley Hinson of Iowa and Mike Rogers of Michigan reversed course to back ending the Iran war and suspending gas taxes. Diesel prices in both states have hit record highs, according to AAA.
The survey of 1,280 respondents was conducted Sept. 14-15 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Move over AI doomsday scenarios. Republicans seem to innately trust rapidly evolving artificial intelligence technology — even as they distrust the largest AI companies so much they’ve started spinning new conspiracies on Capitol Hill.
Terrifying warnings from many at the top of the AI revolution — including from an industry insider who warned the creations he was involved in could destroy the human race within 10 years, and urged the government to set up guardrails — were shrugged off by multiple Republicans.
The dystopian predictions were no more than an effort to bolster the AI insiders' own businesses, GOP lawmakers who spoke to Raw Story said.
"There was an awful lot of what appeared to be rent-seeking by giant companies saying, 'please put the government in charge of everything and lock us into market dominance and stop any new competitors from challenging our market dominance,'" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) — who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee — told Raw Story while walking through the U.S. Capitol.
“People came to me when I was governor all the time, ‘Oh, you need to regulate us’ — that means I don't want any competition,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) told Raw Story while riding an elevator to the Senate floor. “If you have a family, you shouldn't be building something that's going to kill your family.”
“Are they generating their own demand for future security products?” Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC) asked Raw Story in the Capitol’s basement. “I don't think you need to slow down, because China's not slowing down, but what you need to do is make sure they're focusing their engineering effort on safety.”
Some of the starkest warnings about AI now come from inside the industry. In September 2026, researcher Jacob Coxon quit Anthropic, saying AI companies are gambling with our lives and that builders privately fear it could kill everyone by decade's end.
Anthropic's alignment lead, Evan Hubinger, agreed, putting the odds of that happening at above 10% within ten years and admitting there's no plan yet to align superintelligence.
With so many competing AI proposals floating around, Democrats are far from monolithic on how to rein in artificial intelligence, but most are unified in eye-rolling over their GOP counterparts’ latest anti-regulation screed.
"I understand it in the conspiracy-laden world in which we live, but I heartily reject that," Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) told Raw Story.
This fall’s upcoming elections only seem to be hardening the two parties into opposing positions new to the previously bipartisan AI space.
While many Silicon Valley firms are ringing the alarm about the end of humanity, their fears are hardly penetrating today’s Republican-controlled Senate.
“They want to preempt a predatory capture by having regulations written to their benefit and exclusion of potential competition. I'm highly skeptical,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told Raw Story.
Johnson likens today’s AI fears to those raised around COVID — a global pandemic which did kill more than a million Americans — and climate change, which the vast majority of scientists say is undeniably real and an existential threat to the planet.
“There's fear-mongering. I'm not buying it,” Johnson, who’s worth tens of millions of dollars from his past life as CEO of a Wisconsin-based polyester and plastics manufacturing company, said. “I think they let them loose. True or not? I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical.”
Other multi-millionaire former businessmen in the GOP agree.
“What do you make of these AI companies saying, ‘We can't control our own’?” Raw Story asked former luxury car salesman Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH).
“Then go do something else. Then close your company down,” Moreno, whose estimated net worth tops $100 million, told Raw Story. “Think about that, in any other industry — any other industry — imagine if you're a defense contractor, before AI was in existence, and you said, ‘We make this weapon, we won't be able to control it. It could kill Americans.’ What would people say?”
Moreno supports legislation forcing disclosure of AI-created content for images, especially when it comes to deceptive deepfakes that animate realistic fictions.
“I think image is the low-hanging fruit, let's get that done,” Moreno said. “With the digital infrastructure, data centers, no more tax breaks. They have to produce their own power. No impact on the environment on a community benefit. We can do that, right?”
But, while Moreno’s open to the idea of some very targeted AI guardrails, he’s just not buying the doomsday narratives tech CEOs are selling right now.
“If you can't control your own product, then don't make your own product,” Moreno continued. “The ultimate irony with the companies is then they're saying, ‘well, we can't control our product. It's super dangerous, but we're going to go out and do an IPO and make a fortune.’”
To Moreno and many Republicans, the fear of over-regulation trumps any fears of AI armageddon.
“What we don't want is the AI industry being completely subservient to the federal government, where the federal government basically becomes like China, where they're — whatever administration is in charge — is controlling artificial intelligence and large learning models. If you imagine 1984, that would be it to me.”
To critics, many rank-and-file Republicans are borrowing scare tactics from Trump when they wave China-sized rhetorical red flags. And these new GOP prophecies predicting the end of “free” markets feel concocted to protect today’s new AI oligarchy,
“Do you still trust these companies to largely regulate themselves?” Raw Story asked the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. “Or do you think in light of this new doomsday scenario they laid out that maybe Congress can step in?”
“There are unquestionably catastrophic risks that need to be addressed, particularly in the arena of nuclear matters or biohazards. There should be meaningful protections,” Cruz told Raw Story,
Cruz’s committee has broad jurisdiction over all things AI and the economy — yet he seems more afraid of regulations than rogue AI agents.
“But at the same time, we should not allow overzealous Washington bureaucrats to cripple American technological innovation and allow China to win the race for AI,” he added. “That would have devastating consequences for the American economy, for jobs, and it would also cede the world of AI to embody the values of the Chinese Communist Party. That would be a terrible outcome for America, a terrible outcome for the world.”
With Trump and an increasing number of Republicans arguing that most any regulatory guardrails placed on AI will set America back in today’s hypersonic AI race with China, Democrats are dumbfounded by the new protectionist rhetoric coming from Cruz and company.
“That's simply not a true statement,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) told Raw Story after voting in the Capitol.
Duckworth sits on the Cruz-controlled Commerce Committee, and the veteran also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Look, I think that there is potential for AI when it comes to cancer research, Alzheimer's research, but there always should be guardrails," Duckworth said. “All that I want is reasonable, common-sense guardrails on AI and how we use AI, and I think saying that any guardrails put us back against China. I feel like that's dangerous.”
While it doesn’t seem like it in the lead-up to this year’s midterm elections, the artificial intelligence debate doesn’t fall into the neat hyper-partisan boxes that most all other hot-button issues fit these increasingly tribalistic days.
Over in the House, even Democrats disagree on potential regulatory answers to this latest Silicon Valley-induced problem vexing America and weighing on the political class, but Democrats' disagreements seem to stop at regulators’ doors.
“Some of the concerns that people have around whether, you know, what the motives of the companies are, some of these are legitimate concerns, and I think we need to take them into account as we're thinking about what Congress does, right?" Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) told Raw Story.
"Some of the things that are, you know, being raised around how we make sure that whatever we do doesn't actually only benefit the big companies that are already there but still allows new entrants, that we're protecting open-weight models, like, those are all legitimate things that we need to be taking into account."
On the left, while there’s some disagreement on whether this latest wave of opposition is coming from new, Trump-tinged GOP talking points or valid concerns with big tech, the party isn’t embracing conspiracies.
Rather, members are terrified as they try to address the new digital frontier — like when OpenAI’s chatbots hacked their way out of the cyber prison developers thought they’d confined them in.
OpenAI said that two of its AI models autonomously hacked their way out of a controlled environment where they were supposed to be walled off from internet access, then broke into the systems of Hugging Face, a company that hosts open source AI models and testing resources, in order to cheat on an internal evaluation.
"Then they had kamikaze agents that would go, essentially commit suicide, to get information back to the collective, and you think OpenAI made all this s--- up as a regulatory capture scheme? Then you are just blinded by profit and partisanship," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told Raw Story. "These people understand that they're creating products that they've lost control of and are not safe."
Other Democrats, like Virginia Congressman Don Beyer, say these new GOP artificial intelligence conspiracies don’t mesh with the mission of safe AI tech companies like OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepMind say they were founded on.
"It's been part of their culture from the very beginning, so maybe it will have a financial impact," Beyer told Raw Story. "They all started from a premise of safety. They were all aware of risk from the very beginning. It could also have a negative financial impact on them if they actually pace the frontier or slow down."
Before Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) changed the House schedule, yet again, and sent members home until after the November election, many lawmakers received closed-door AI briefings. Those briefings left many lawmakers spooked.
Some members even reported a new, growing sense of bipartisan unity around artificial intelligence.
“While I think the American people are aware of it, it is really now bubbling to the surface finally here in Congress,” Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) told Raw Story.
What Escobar and other proponents of new AI regulations fear now is that this momentary era of bipartisan AI unity may be but a moment in time — potentially one that may have disappeared by the time the midterms are over and Congress returns to Washington.
“I do believe if we were around each other a little bit more, there would be a sense of urgency,” Escobar told Raw Story. “Some of the CEOs have, you know, some of the AI folks are in town and have been meeting with groups of us. It is really stunning that with these flashing red signals, Mike Johnson is sending everybody home.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) “angrily” lashed out Tuesday at new reporting that exposed an alleged campaign cash bribery scheme involving her office, denying the underlying allegations while also blaming the report on one of her own Senate colleagues, Punchbowl News reported.
As revealed in a bombshell report published Tuesday by ProPublica, Collins’ office was alleged by Martin Kao — a former defense contractor currently serving an 87-month sentence for money laundering and bank fraud — to have helped steer millions of tax dollars into his company, Navatek, in exchange for illegal campaign contributions funneled through a shell company. Collins’ office has fiercely denied any wrongdoing.
“This was investigated by the Biden Justice Department and the FBI,” Collins told reporters coming off the Senate floor Tuesday evening, Punchbowl News reported. “In 2021, the Biden Justice Department found there was no wrongdoing by anyone on my campaign staff, my office or me. This is absolutely outrageous. It’s clearly a political hit job.”
The Justice Department probe into the alleged scheme was shuttered after President Donald Trump retook the White House, ProPublica reported, with multiple former officials telling the outlet that the second Trump administration no longer took public corruption seriously in any meaningful fashion.
Rather than just deny the allegations, however, Collins also moved to suggest the report was the doing of one of her Senate colleagues: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
“It’s obvious if you look at ProPublica,” Collins said. “It’s obvious if you look at the tactics that Chuck Schumer always uses.”
Despite having maintained “good relationships with a number of Senate Democrats,” Politico previously noted, Collins has had an especially tense relationship with Schumer for years, with the outlet describing it as “frostier than ever” in 2021.
President Donald Trump brushed off concerns about his White House ballroom's growing size with an apples-to-oranges comparison and a caustic note to the architect, according to a new report.
The Washington Post obtained dozens of undated handwritten notes that appeared to come from Trump to architect James McCrery II while the two worked on early White House ballroom designs in 2025.
One document places a planned data center superimposed over Manhattan to show how enormous it is, with a note at the top reading: "James, And you think we are big."
The Post described the note as an apparent reference to McCrery's concerns about the ballroom's size as tension between the two flared through the summer of 2025 over Trump's insistence on expanding the event space until it was nearly twice the size of the historic mansion, with room for more than 1,300 guests.
According to two people familiar with the discussions, McCrery repeatedly warned the White House that Trump's preferred design did not give guests enough emergency exit routes and would do little to keep a kitchen fire from spreading into the event space above.
Trump brushed off the concerns and said building codes don't apply to White House construction, those people said.
"I am the code," Trump said, according to the Post's sources.
Other markings, made in what appeared to be Trump's trademark black Sharpie, enlarged McCrery's sketch of a 640-seat ballroom, scratched out service corridors and crossed out two sets of service stairs, and the notes also covered details as small as which way doors should swing.
Trump's preferred design also did not include enough toilets to accommodate the ballroom's maximum occupancy – with just seven stalls in the women's restroom in one early draft – and his Sharpie markings instead expanded the event space to occupy most of the building's footprint and emphasized preferences like Corinthian-style columns over simpler columns.
The documents were later stored at the White House in a box labeled "Docs bearing POTUS's mark."
Trump spent hours at a time discussing the project with McCrery and called the architect's cellphone at all hours, the Post reported. McCrery resigned the week of Oct. 20, 2025, the same week demolition of the East Wing began.
A White House spokesman said it would be "factually false and totally inaccurate" to tie McCrery's exit to code issues. He added that "life safety issues have been addressed and resolved continuously as the design has evolved."
McCrery offered no reason for leaving. "Having completed the earliest designs, I stepped aside and a new firm was engaged," he said in a statement.
Senate Republicans could be headed for a bloody internal brawl if they hang onto the chamber this midterm — and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) gets a big promotion, Politico reported on Wednesday.
President Donald Trump has long fumed over the "blue slip," a Senate tradition letting home-state senators — including Democrats — effectively veto district court judges, federal marshals and U.S. attorneys nominated in their state. Lee, an avid Trump advocate, is next in line to chair the powerful Judiciary Committee if the GOP keeps its majority, putting him in position to finally give the president what he is demanding.
"The decision risks pitting Lee against his Senate GOP colleagues, many of whom support the status quo. It also all but guarantees a public pressure campaign from Trump, with whom Lee has worked to ingratiate himself over the past two years," Politico reported.
Lee isn't promising to blow the whole thing up, though, Politico reported.
"There is no appetite to just get rid of them," he remarked, adding that "the blue slip itself has had a lot of evolution and it's almost never static," even if he called it "premature" to detail his plans, noting past chairs had made "iterative changes" as needed.
Trump has been blunter, branding the practice an "old and ridiculous custom" on Truth Social and blasting current Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — who has repeatedly refused to scrap it — over letting "this scam to continue."
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) said he'd fight to keep blue slips alive in committee and on the floor. "I know who is qualified in my state to be a federal judge a lot better than somebody in Washington, D.C., does," Kennedy said, predicting colleagues would simply "outvote" Lee if he tried to kill the custom.
That math could doom Lee's ambitions with the GOP's Senate cushion expected to shrink next Congress. He'd need "nearly every Republican on the committee" — and in the chamber — to back him, a tall order after Trump's attacks already strained relations with his own party, the report states.
"Yesterday in New York, a meeting of the minds between MAGA and socialism," Cain said on "The Will Cain Show," framing Monday's sit-down as uncomfortably chummy.
Much of Cain's irritation stemmed from an off-mic exchange a lip-reader relayed to the New York Post. Lip-reader Jeremy Freeman told the paper Trump privately told Mamdani, "What I will say, we'll look after you, but as I say, you're doing great. I'll look after you, you look after the New Yorkers. And we can both make it work. I wanna support you, help me. Come with me to the White House — see how I work."
"According to a lip-reader, it wasn't a good vibe, even when the mics weren't on," Cain said, before complaining, "As the two get closer, starting to look like so too are the ideologies that are represented."
Cain then pivoted to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece from August to bolster his argument, "The Young MAGA Socialists Are Here," fretting it proved "some young folks on the right are considering socialism as a shortcut to the American dream."
He tersely cited the Journal's numbers: 53 percent of self-identified conservatives under 40 back government-run grocery stores, and in a separate 2025 survey, 42 percent of young conservative likely voters said they'd want a Democratic socialist "to win the presidency in 2028."
Cain on Mamdani/Trump meeting: According to a lipreader, it wasn't a good vibe. The president seemingly telling Mamdani, “I'll look after you…” As the two get closer, it’s starting to look like so too are the ideologies that are represented. pic.twitter.com/vak1tes1cU — Acyn (@Acyn) September 22, 2026
Administration officials have reportedly discussed adding President Donald Trump's name to the site of one the greatest tragedies and a major turning point in American history.
MS NOW reported Wednesday that officials are circulating a list of government properties that could carry Trump's name in some form, while the president fights to add his name to the Kennedy Center, and one of those sites is Ford's Theatre, the Washington playhouse where Abraham Lincoln was fatally shot in 1865.
Sources familiar with the effort said the theater has come up in those discussions, although it remains unclear how seriously it is being considered or what form any tribute would take. One administration official confirmed the idea had been discussed but did not know where it stood.
The White House and the Interior Department both rejected the report. "This story is completely false," White House spokesman Davis Ingle said. An Interior Department spokesperson said: "This is not true."
A former administration official told MS NOW that aides and allies pitch naming ideas to win the 80-year-old president's favor, and that person summed up Trump's attitude this way: "Why would I say no? Everybody's trying to please me."
"They know flattery gets them everything," the former official added.
One person with knowledge of the broader effort said officials are looking for sites that would pose fewer legal hurdles than the Kennedy Center fight – but Ford's Theatre may not be one of them.
Its name, and that of the Petersen House where Lincoln died, is set by the Nixon-era federal law that created Ford's Theatre National Historic Site, so a formal change would likely need approval from Congress, but the administration has pushed ahead with renamings anyway – the changes at the Kennedy Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace both drew lawsuits.
Trump has lauded the site before. “What a place,” Trump said in a June 2019 gala speech there, before he turned toward the box where Lincoln was shot and said, "That's history at its highest."
The president has left his mark across the capital in his second term. His face appears on passports and on banners hung over federal agencies, the East Wing was demolished for his ballroom, and plans are moving ahead for a 250-foot arch near Arlington National Cemetery.
Officials have also reportedly discussed putting his name on Dulles International Airport, Penn Station and the Commanders' new stadium, although Trump has denied pursuing the Penn Station renaming.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a bill in January that would bar naming federal property after sitting presidents. It has not advanced.
The theater is currently staging “Come From Away,” a musical about the Canadian town that welcomed thousands of passengers whose flights were grounded after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
As President Donald Trump’s war against Iranrisks escalating even further just weeks out from the midterms, a growing number of Republican lawmakers are racing to oppose the deeply unpopular conflict that has sent gas prices soaring, Punchbowl News reported Wednesday.
“On the campaign trail, the drumbeat against the war is getting louder,” Punchbowl News reported, describing GOP candidates as having “hit the panic button” by “throwing everything and the kitchen sink at their sinking political fortunes.”
The number of GOP candidates now pivoting against the U.S. war against Iran has grown significantly over the past several weeks. On Monday, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), an early supporter of the conflict who’s running for Senate, called for the war to come to an “immediate end.” Several others, including former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), who’s running for Senate, and Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI), who’s running for governor, have also called for the war to come to an end, while others have openly acknowledged the growing frustration among Trump’s supporters.
“[There’s frustration] even among MAGA world that the president [should] go ahead and finish the job and do what he can,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), Punchbowl News reported, with Wicker adding that the cost of diesel fuel was “just too damn high.”
“On top of that, Republicans are increasingly embracing a gas-tax holiday — something most GOP lawmakers decried as a useless band-aid when former President Joe Biden proposed it,” Punchbowl News’ report reads.
In one “rare instance,” a GOP senator demanded this week that Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., be investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee for his personal business dealings, warning that Trump Jr. may have even created “national security vulnerabilities” with his close ties to foreign figures.
President Donald Trump took his signature black Sharpie to early White House ballroom designs, scratching out service stairs and corridors and expanding the room's footprint as the project's first architect blared warnings about fire safety, according to a new report.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that architect James McCrery II left the project in October 2025 after repeatedly warning that Trump's preferred design lacked enough emergency exit routes and fire-containment measures, and two people familiar with the discussions said the president brushed off the concerns and insisted that no building codes apply to White House construction.
"I am the code," Trump said, according to those people.
Documents obtained by the Post include preliminary drawings with dozens of undated handwritten notes that appeared to come from Trump.
One set of markings enlarged McCrery's sketch of a 640-seat ballroom, scratched out proposed service corridors and stretched the room across the entire width of the second floor, while other markings crossed out two sets of service stairs and some weighed in on details as small as which way doors should swing.
The documents were later stored at the White House in a box labeled "Docs bearing POTUS's mark."
McCrery warned that most guests could not quickly leave through the main entrance in an emergency under the design, the Post reported, and he also said the other exits were insufficient and that little would stop a kitchen fire from spreading into the event space above.
One early design had just seven stalls in the women's restroom, for a ballroom that eventually grew to seat more than 1,300 people.
White House meeting notes from Sept. 30, 2025, read: "Life safety — big concern." Notes from a Nov. 6 meeting, held after McCrery left, read: "Life safety — needs POTUS buy in." The Post could not determine whether a code review was ever completed.
The project runs through the Executive Residence rather than a federal agency, which exempts it from a federal law requiring compliance with national safety standards, and the District of Columbia has no jurisdiction over federal property.
The builder, Clark Construction, has a contract requiring it to follow codes or "guidance provided by the Contracting Officer." That officer is Joshua Fisher, director of White House management and administration and an assistant to Trump.
A White House spokesman said it would be "factually false" to link McCrery's departure to code issues, and he added that "life safety issues have been addressed and resolved continuously."
In his own statement, McCrery said only that he "stepped aside" after completing the earliest designs.
President Donald Trump went on a sneering tirade just after midnight, once again targeting CNN star Kaitlan Collins and the judge who will hear a lawsuit designed to allow CNN, MS NOW and Politico access to the White House again.
Bringing up his controversial ban on the news organizations, which is headed to court, the president called them “sleazebags” and complained about Collins showing up for his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday.
In the early morning hours he wrote, “All of the SLEAZEBAGS, like Third Rate ‘Reporter,’ Kaitlan Collins, of Fake News CNN, a truly unhappy person, said they weren’t going to be covering me. Then why were they ranting and raving like Lunatics, in the Press Area, at the United Nations? Why was she there?”
He added, “She’s got a ‘TRUMP’ addiction, and so does CNN and MSDNC. They’re all sick, treasonous, and demented! The ‘good news’ is that they have a great, for them, and totally disloyal Judge.”
The “disloyal” judge Trump maligned is U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom he placed on the bench and who previously ruled against the White House in a similar lawsuit filed by CNN in 2018 when CNN’s Jim Acosta received a similar ban.
