Matthew Chapman

The conservative Wall Street Journal slammed Florida's attorney general for his latest effort to attack vaccination — this time by cracking down on private Catholic schools.

The Journal has frequently gone after what it sees as Democrats assaulting religious liberty, particularly when they try to enforce birth control coverage requirements — and they had just as much contempt for this particular policy, which they called a "dangerous constitutional turn."

In July, the board noted, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier "issued a peremptory letter to Catholic bishops accusing them of violating Church doctrine and state law by requiring students to be immunized and not allowing parents who object to vaccines for religious reasons to opt out. There is 'no legitimate religious reason' to deny religious exemptions, he wrote. Thus sayeth the gospel of James Uthmeier."

"He might have done Catholic bishops the courtesy of meeting with them to discuss the issue before posting his threatening letter on social media. Perhaps he thinks picking a public fight with the bishops is smart politics," the board wrote. Regardless, they noted, Florida's Conference of Catholic Bishops director Michael Sheedy hit back with a letter saying “any insinuation that a government official can dictate to the Catholic Church (or any religion) how to apply her tenets and dogma, violates well-established constitutional religious freedom rights.”

Uthmeier, noted the board, only doubled down after this with a social media post slamming the bishops, by saying, “Should Muslim schools teaching sharia law in violation of Florida law nevertheless get state funding? I don’t think so.”

"Is he really suggesting that Catholic schools’ enforcement of vaccine requirements is akin to Sharia law?" the board fumed, slamming Uthmeier for "a callow understanding of religious liberty" and warning he "will hurt children if he bars them from using state scholarships to attend Catholic schools."

MS NOW's Chris Hayes flagged a suspicious episode of tomfoolery in a Democratic primary in Maine, pulled off by Republican dark money — with a deeply ironic twist.

"As Republicans head towards what is currently looking like it could be a shellacking in November ... they are returning to a time-tested playbook," said Hayes. Specifically, he said, that playbook is "unlimited dark money spending."

One of the strangest instances so far, he said, took place in June, when "there was a competitive Democratic House primary underway in northern Maine. Progressive State Auditor Matt Dunlap was running against the more moderate centrist state Senator Joe Baldacci" — all in a competitive but Trump-leaning district occupied by outgoing Democratic Rep. Jared Golden.

Because of the district's "Trumpy" lean, said Hayes, "conservatives wanted the more progressive candidate."

"They wanted Dunlap to win because they believed he would be easier to defeat in the fall," he said. "And so a Republican-linked dark money group started running attack ads against the other guy, the centrist Baldacci, accusing him of being the candidate — get this, wait for it — who was backed by dark money."

Hayes played the ad.

"Joe Baldacci, the hand-picked yes man of Dark Money D.C.," said the narrator. "He's bankrolled by D.C. and beholden to them, not us. The truth: Joe Baldacci is the only Democrat running for Congress who stands with Trump and opposed implementing Medicare for All Mainers. Good for the establishment, bad for Mainers. Reject dark money and corporate Democrats — vote No on D.C.'s handpicked yes man Joe Baldacci."

The ad, noted Hayes, was cut by a group called "Real Change PAC" — which seems to have Republicans' fingerprints all over it.

"[It's] just preposterously, breathlessly cynical stuff," said Hayes. "A dark money ad by right-wing pro-billionaire interests painting the guy they want to defeat ... as the handpicked yes man of dark money."

Ultimately, he said, Dunlap won that primary. "Now, again, money's not dispositive. I think there's a lot of reasons Maine Democrats in that district clearly had an appetite for progressive fighters this cycle, and Dunlap's still got a chance to hold that race." Nevertheless, he added, "I'm sure having hundreds of thousands of dollars in dark money accusing you of being a simp for dark money dropped on your head didn't do any favors."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The Trump White House has quietly greenlit a fresh renovation of the historic Harry S. Truman Bowling Alley, wading into a project so politically toxic it once got canceled within 90 minutes of a single news story breaking.

The General Services Administration (GSA) awarded a nearly $253,000 contract on July 28 for lighting work on the two-lane bowling alley in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, according to public contract records reviewed by Politico's West Wing Playbook.

A separate August 18 contract added $8,800 for escort services to shepherd outside workers through secure White House areas. The same contractor, Charles Mann Enterprises — a Washington firm founded by former NFL Pro Bowler Charles Mann — also landed a much larger $878,000 contract that same day for an unspecified "EEOB basement studio project," in the same basement where the bowling alley sits.

History suggests this kind of project rarely stays quiet for long.

In 2014, the Obama administration proposed a full rebuild of the same lanes after GSA deemed them "irreparable" — only for the entire plan to collapse within an hour and a half of Time magazine breaking the story, amid fierce Republican backlash. Then-RNC Chair Reince Priebus mocked the project publicly, and the GOP-controlled House even passed an amendment specifically banning funds for bowling alley renovations; then-Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA) compared the upgrade to an indulgence like buying ice cream.

The alley itself has a long, bipartisan history of touch-ups.

It was first built in 1947 for Harry Truman's birthday and funded by Missourians, then relocated under Dwight Eisenhower in 1955, renovated under Bill Clinton in 1994, and fully restored during Trump's first term under first lady Melania Trump, that time paid for by the Bowling Proprietors' Association of America rather than taxpayers.

Trump's efforts to upgrade and renovate property around D.C. have drawn intense controversy from the public, with one of the most fraught projects being his creation of a ballroom in place of the East Wing. The Supreme Court cleared away major legal hurdles to proceed with that project on Monday.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's seeming overtures toward a future run for office, or possibly even the presidency, startled a CNN panel on Monday evening — as they tried to work through the implications.

Mark Williams of Ferox Strategies attempted to downplay the possibility of it happening.

"I don't think anyone's talking about Pete Hegseth potentially running for president except for reporters," he said. "You know, if you look at, you know, who the field might be, I don't see his name ever pop up in kind of the top five."

Former Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh, however, had her eye on another sign.

"I will say ... for the Secretary of Defense to be out there on the campaign trail, he has campaigned with multiple Republican candidates in different states," said Singh. This behavior, she continued, "shows a misplaced priority specifically of this administration. So I would not be surprised if someone like Pete Hegseth says, well, maybe I should run for president."

"But all the secretaries [are] out on the road," insisted Williams.

"But the Secretary of Defense is always meant to be apolitical and is never meant to be ... part of the campaign apparatus," shot back Singh, a point Williams conceded. "And this is particularly unusual with what we have seen."

- YouTube youtu.be

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who led controversial immigration crackdowns in Chicago and Minneapolis, was secretly under internal investigation when he suddenly announced his retirement in March, per newly released records.

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show a federal watchdog official contacted Bovino on March 2 to open an "official Inquiry into allegations of misconduct," the Chicago Tribune reported on Monday.

Just over two weeks later, on March 18, Bovino informed officials he planned to retire. The investigation centered partly on a federal judge's finding that Bovino had lied under oath, and partly on allegations he made antisemitic remarks toward a Minneapolis prosecutor.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis had ruled last fall that Bovino's testimony in a Chicago civil rights case was "not credible," writing that he'd appeared evasive and untruthful during depositions. Investigators directly asked Bovino whether that finding made him "Giglio impaired" — legal jargon for an officer whose credibility problems must be disclosed to defense attorneys in future criminal cases. Separately, investigators asked whether Bovino had commented that a Jewish federal prosecutor's Sabbath observance meant "orthodox criminals" also take Saturdays off, and whether he'd made a reference to Jewish people as the "chosen people."

Bovino denies any wrongdoing, telling the Tribune both probes were "drummed up" after he left Minnesota and calling the whole episode a "political hit job." He claims Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott forced a second review after an initial board cleared him, framing his ouster as retaliation.

"Open a file. Strip the security detail. Investigate the security," Bovino wrote in a recent social media post, describing what he called a deliberate effort to push him out quietly.

Since retiring, Bovino has turned increasingly critical of the Trump administration's immigration approach, pushing conspiracy theories that one-third of the entire U.S. population should be deported, and even suggesting in a Tucker Carlson interview that officials stripped his security detail because they wanted him dead. Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the newly surfaced records.

The Army now has zero Senate-confirmed leaders, civilian or military, after Secretary Dan Driscoll resigned following months of open warfare with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Driscoll submitted his resignation to President Trump and is expected to leave in the coming days, the Wall Street Journal reported. The move capped a bitter feud with Hegseth over the Army's direction.

His departure leaves the service in an unprecedented leadership vacuum, the report added. Gen. Christopher LaNeve has been serving as acting chief since Hegseth abruptly fired Driscoll's close ally, Gen. Randy George, without explanation.

The White House put a rosy spin on Driscoll's exit, crediting him with strengthening the Army under Trump's leadership.

"The United States Army is more powerful than ever thanks to his work alongside the Commander-in-Chief and Secretary of War," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.

That framing glosses over the turmoil behind the scenes. Driscoll and George had worked closely together preparing the Army for drone-dominated modern warfare, and Driscoll had also played a lead White House role in Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations. But Hegseth's mounting distrust of senior Army leadership, and his firing of George in a 15-second phone call earlier this year, left Driscoll increasingly isolated and barely on speaking terms with his own boss.

Until now, Driscoll had denied any plans to resign.

Driscoll's exit adds to a growing pattern of Hegseth purging or sidelining the Army's most experienced leadership. Hegseth has now fired or forced out at least a half-dozen senior officers, shrinking the Army's four-star general ranks from 10 down to just five — the fewest in decades — even as the service faces its busiest operational period since Iraq and Afghanistan, defending U.S. troops from Iranian missile attacks in the Middle East and supporting Ukraine's fight against Russia.

With no confirmed civilian secretary and no confirmed chief of staff now running the Army simultaneously, critics warn the leadership gap couldn't come at a worse time, leaving the service to navigate an increasingly dangerous global landscape without anyone in permanent, Senate-vetted command.

A federal judge shut down the Trump administration's latest attempt to fast-track sweeping new mail-in ballot rules just two months before the midterms, accusing the Justice Department of twisting a recent Supreme Court order to suit its own timeline.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied motions Monday from the Trump administration and intervening defendants seeking to lift her 14-day stay blocking the U.S. Postal Service's new final rule on mail-in ballots. The rule, published August 26, would require state and local election officials to get USPS sign-off on ballot envelope designs and upload voter information through a federal portal before using the mail for election purposes — all with the November 3 midterms bearing down.

The administration argued it needed the stay lifted immediately, claiming that waiting for appellate review would come too late to matter for this year's elections, and pointed to a recent Supreme Court order it claimed supported that urgency. Talwani wasn't buying the interpretation.

"Contrary to Defendants' cynical interpretation, the Supreme Court has not endorsed the view that any challenge to the Final Rule is now too late," Talwani wrote.

Talwani noted the Supreme Court's earlier ruling found review premature only because no final rule existed when the case was first filed—not that any future challenge would be barred once one did exist. She also rejected the administration's attempt to frame the new voting requirements as "modest," pointing out the rule conditions all use of federal election mail on states first securing USPS approval, a burden several state election officials say could be nearly impossible to fully meet in time.

The judge cited concerns from a North Carolina election official warning the rule risks disenfranchising eligible voters in November. Talwani emphasized that voters and election officials need "clear and settled" rules with the midterms now barely two months away, rather than last-minute changes imposed through a rushed federal rule.

With a preliminary injunction hearing already scheduled for September 3, the fight over the Trump administration's mail voting overhaul is far from over — but for now, Talwani's stay keeps the new requirements from taking effect as states head into the final stretch before Election Day.

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump to restart construction on his controversial White House ballroom project — but Chief Justice John Roberts is not happy about it.

Roberts joined with the three liberals in a dissent against his conservative colleagues, outlining what he sees as the simple, plain fact that Congress hasn't granted any authority to move ahead with the project.

"The President ordered the demolition of the East Wing of the White House to make way for a new, privately funded state ballroom in its place. Construction of the ballroom has proceeded apace for the better part of a year," he wrote. "That construction is likely unlawful."

Roberts cited 40 U.S.C. § 8106, which states that it is illegal to construct any "building or structure ... on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress."

"The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds — President's Park — in the District of Columbia," Roberts continued. "Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling 'express authority' for the Executive's construction of it."

The Supreme Court's ruling on the White House ballroom, which lifts lower court blocks on construction, is in theory not the final decision, as its legality will continue to be challenged in lower courts. However, it is likely that the ballroom's construction will be complete or near complete before any final resolution on the matter can be handed down, rendering the issue moot.

Vice President JD Vance came to Michigan to campaign against Abdul El-Sayed, the former public health official turned Democratic Senate candidate — but El-Sayed had other plans.

At a campaign event on Monday, El-Sayed seized his moment during a press conference to hit back at his rival, former Rep. Mike Rogers, for inviting Vance to campaign with him — triggering stifled laughter from behind him, and an explosive reaction on social media.

"Why would you invite JD Vance except for maybe you've got a Vance Bromance?" said El-Sayed. "I don't know, questions about JD Vance are legion. We don't have more couches here than they have in Ohio. So I'm just trying to figure out why he would come."

The couch comment refers to an unfounded, viral internet rumor during the 2024 election that Vance performed intimate acts with a couch. It's a frequent point of mockery lobbed at the vice president from Democratic figures — and it got an instant reaction online.

"AHHHHHHHH," wrote political YouTuber Jack Cocchiarella.

"Bonus points to [Congresswoman and primary opponent turned surrogate] Mallory McMorrow for stifling the laugh," wrote podcaster Hemant Mehta.

"Mallory McMorrow's expression after making the couch joke is priceless," wrote Eric Michael Garcia, the D.C. bureau chief for The Independent.

Alex Cole of the Newsitics site simply posted three laughing emojis.

Republican campaign committees are scrambling to the Supreme Court in an emergency bid to save the financial edge they'd been counting on to bury Democrats on the airwaves this fall — after a federal appeals court ruling threatened to wipe it out entirely.

According to Politico, the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee filed an emergency appeal Friday with Chief Justice John Roberts, asking him to immediately block a 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stripped party committees of the rock-bottom TV advertising rates the law guarantees individual candidates. Without a stay, broadcasters would be free starting Friday to charge national party organizations the same higher rates everyone else pays.

The Republican National Committee currently sits on more than $130 million in cash, while the DNC is actually in debt. Ever since the Supreme Court struck down campaign finance limits on the party committees earlier this year, Republicans have been banking on that massive cash gap stretching even further with access to cheap ad rates — a strategy the 4th Circuit's ruling now threatens to gut entirely, since it would force GOP committees to burn through their war chest much faster to get the same airtime.

The Trump administration jumped in to back the GOP's emergency request, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer stressing the urgency directly to the court.

"Candidates and political parties need immediate relief from the uncertainty created by the Fourth Circuit's decision," Sauer wrote.

Democrats, by contrast, have far less riding on the ruling holding up. While Democratic candidates actually brought the original legal challenge, their real financial strength lies in direct small-dollar donations rather than committee cash, giving their fundraising dollars more natural mileage regardless of what happens with bulk ad rates.

The GOP's appeal leans heavily on a sharp dissent from conservative judge J. Harvie Wilkinson in last week's 2-1 ruling, citing the Reagan appointee's name 31 times in their filing. The fight has already spilled into a public skirmish between the parties, with Democratic media buyers warning broadcasters that granting lower rates now would be illegal, and Republicans firing back by telling stations to disregard that warning entirely.

Roberts declined to grant Republicans' requested immediate stay, instead setting a tight noon Monday deadline for Democrats to respond — leaving the GOP's expensive advertising strategy hanging in the balance just as the fall campaign sprint begins.

A guest on MS NOW reacted in shock to reporting about a very bizarre FBI hiring policy change — but MS NOW's Alicia Menendez swiftly hedged it almost at once.

Michael Feinberg, former FBI assistant special agent, didn't mince words when Menendez asked him, "What do you think is the most insane change" to the FBI's new relaxing of standards for who can work for the agency.

"I think allowing people who've committed bestiality into the special agent ranks," he said, without hesitating.

"Is the FBI going somewhere that is going to have no upside whatsoever?" he continued, noting that the agency "is often mired in controversy, right or wrong, and its representatives have to deal with the public on a daily basis in ways that often get fraught or confrontational or discomforting. I don't know if making Joe Public have to worry about whether the person searching his house or interviewing him as a witness has raped an animal is really a conversation that the FBI needs to be having in this day."

Menendez, at this point, chimed in with a very important qualification.

"I just want to say that was less well-sourced than some of the other reporting, which is why we had not initially included it in our own," she said.

The FBI has dealt with a string of chaos and scandals since far-right Trump ally Kash Patel took the helm. Reporting earlier this year indicated the FBI director is in a constant state of paranoia about losing his job, although White House officials have denied this and Patel has sued The Atlantic for reporting on it.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

MS NOW's Jen Psaki kicked off Friday evening with a look back on all the rich and powerful people who sucked up to Trump when he got back in power — and how humiliating it looks now.

"Now, what was our new normal in this country?" said Psaki. "There was no going back. And American corporations and institutions all had to rush to get on board with his agenda. We watched big, powerful law firms rush to bend the knee to Trump, giving in to nearly every demand. We saw the same thing from major media organizations who settled bogus lawsuits, paid millions of dollars, and caved to his intimidation tactics."

But one of the most prominent displays, she said, came from Big Tech, as Silicon Valley "tripped all over themselves to grovel before the mad king."

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg were all at Trump's inauguration, noted Psaki. "Even Apple's CEO, Tim Cook ... went to the White House and presented Trump with a big, shiny trophy that looks a lot like a fake award, doesn't it? And then, Bezos went in public and proclaimed Trump had finally discovered how to be president.

"What I've seen so far is that he is calmer than he was the first time, and more confident, more settled," said Bezos in the clip Psaki played. "I'm comparing him to his first term, and I think he is a more mature, more disciplined version of himself than he was in his first term."

"He's so much calmer now, disciplined, more mature, which, by the way, more mature is such a choice of word for a man who is in his late 70s," said Psaki. "But that aside, it was all just incredibly embarrassing for all of these guys. But that was how too much of Corporate America reacted to Trump's second term. They cowered before him like he and the MAGA world he created were going to reign all-powerful for a thousand years moving forward."

Ultimately, of course, this didn't happen, said Psaki — his tariffs and Iran war stagnated the economy, while his personal scandals and his attempts to bulldoze D.C. for monuments to himself triggered widespread backlash.

After all of the prostration before Trump by Big Tech, said Psaki, "the illusion of Trump's lasting power and influence has completely faded away, and now even members of his own party are trying to wash some of the Trump stink off of themselves."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Trade war tensions between the U.S. and Canada have spilled onto the map, with Ottawa city officials now pushing to strip President Trump's name off a residential street — and replace it with something a bit more pointed.

According to Newsweek, Ottawa Councillor Riley Brockington says he plans to work with Trump Avenue residents to rename the street once the city's October election wraps up, calling its current name an embarrassment. One of the leading suggestions submitted so far: "Taco Avenue," a nod to the acronym "Trump Always Chickens Out" that went viral online in 2025 following Trump's on-again, off-again global tariff threats.

Brockington didn't hold back explaining his reasoning.

"I think the time has come when you look at the damage and carnage that the president has caused, including with our own country," Brockington said. "We're past the point of debating."

Other proposed names floated by residents include Pelosi Avenue, Obama Avenue, Gulf of Mexico Avenue, and even Rosie O'Donnell Avenue, according to Councillor Tim Tierney. The street originally got its name roughly 25 years ago as part of a New York City-themed neighborhood, back when Trump was known mainly as a Manhattan real estate developer, alongside streets like Manhattan Crescent and Staten Way.

It's not the first time Ottawa has considered renaming the street, as similar proposals cropped up in 2021.

The renaming push comes as trade relations between the two countries continue to deteriorate, following Trump's 50% tariff on various Canadian goods and his repeated suggestions that Canada should become the "51st state." Canadian consumers have responded with a broader boycott of American products, while American cities report a sharp drop in Canadian tourism.

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump signed an executive order Thursday directing U.S. federal agencies to rename Lake Ontario as "Lake America" on all government maps and documents — a change that applies only domestically and cannot force Canada or international mapmakers to follow suit. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already rejected the new name, noting "Ontario" derives from the Indigenous Wendat word for "beautiful lake."

President Donald Trump's campaign trail promises on groceries have gone down in flames, MS NOW's Chris Hayes told "All In" viewers on Friday.

"You remember back in 2024 when Donald Trump was running for president, and he kept talking like he hadn't heard the term groceries before, like it was this new word," said Hayes. "Maybe he invented it. It's a strange time."

Regardless, he vowed to make groceries cheap for everyone — and Hayes played numerous clips of Trump saying as such.

"Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again," said Trump in one clip.

"We're going to bring prices way down, and we're going to get it done fast," he said in another.

"A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper," he said in yet another.

A fourth clip had Trump rambling. "I do say this before we have to get down. I think of groceries. You know, it's an old-fashioned word, but it's a beautiful word. I went on groceries. It's a very simple word. Groceries, like almost. You know who uses the word? I started using the word the groceries. When you buy apples, when you buy bacon, when you buy eggs, they were double and triple the price over a short period of time. You know, we lowered the cost of groceries. A simple word like that. Groceries. It was like almost a strange word. I hadn't heard the word in so long. But what could be more beautiful than the word grocery?"

The president arguably secured his victory in 2024 with this message, said Hayes, as voters were fed up with inflation and wanted a fix.

"Swing voters really did believe he was going to bring prices down, even though, as we also noted quite a bit during the campaign, he was simultaneously campaigning on a tariff policy that was guaranteed to make everything, groceries included, more expensive."

Ultimately, said Hayes, that exact scenario came to pass, with his tariffs driving up grocery prices even further — and particularly impacting beef, which has gone from an average of $5/lb to $7/lb.

"Voters see it every week at the store or every other day. And lots of people hate this economy," said Hayes. This is what is driving Trump to "import 300,000 metric tons of foreign beef without his tariffs. Where exactly are we importing it from? Who knows?"

The problem now, said Hayes, is that this plan has caused a revolt in his own party, with ranchers particularly furious as their livelihoods are threatened by foreign "mystery meat."

- YouTube youtu.be

The conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board has a dire message for President Donald Trump: the tariffs could cost him Texas.

This is backed, the board wrote, by a Texas Public Policy Foundation poll showing "that tariffs are unpopular in the Lone Star State, especially among Hispanics." Specifically, it "shows that Texans overall disapprove of his tariffs, 54% to 46%. Texans who didn’t vote in a party primary — generally independents and folks who are less partisan — disapproved of them, 68% to 32%. Hispanics gave them the thumbs down, 69% to 31%."

Numbers like this are a serious problem for the GOP, said the board, "because Mr. Trump won 55% of the state’s Hispanic vote in 2024, no doubt in part owing to frustration with Democrats’ handling of inflation. But Hispanics also strongly oppose the President’s blunderbuss border taxes targeting trade partners like Mexico and Canada, which raise costs for consumers and businesses."

The WSJ editorial board has been one of the sharpest and most vocal opponents of Trump's tariffs on the right since the beginning.

Texas has long been considered a "white whale" for Democrats, who have gotten close to competing in the country's most populous red state several times but haven't won a statewide office there since 1994 — the longest dry spell of any state in the country. This year their crop of candidates is polling closer than ever, with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico leading a majority of polls against state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The bottom line, wrote the board, is that "the tariffs have become an albatross for Republicans in close races across the country, including Texas" — and that "Every time he threatens more tariffs, Mr. Trump is making Democratic leader Chuck Schumer’s day."