Food stamp benefits for 42 million Americans in jeopardy today amid shutdown
With no deal in place to reopen the government and no action from the administration to make up for a funding shortfall in federal benefits, millions of Americans are at risk of losing food benefits starting on Saturday. The argument raging in the Senate mirrors the same argument that has so far seen the government shutdown for 32 days. Senate Democrats contend that with the stroke of a pen — like on expiring Obamacare subsidies — President Donald Trump could easily see the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps, funded as the shutdown drags on. SENATE GOP DIVIDED AS MILLIONS RISK LOSING FOOD AID IN SHUTDOWN STANDOFF “We don’t want to pit healthcare and food, [Republicans] do,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “We think you can have both.” But congressional Republicans and the administration argue that food stamp benefits, and numerous other government programs, could be fully funded if Schumer and his caucus would unlock the votes to reopen the government. Democrats are suing the Trump administration in part over its refusal to use the SNAP emergency fund, which they contend has about $5 billion, to fund the program. But a recent memo by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) argued there was no legal standing to use the fund and that federal SNAP funds would run dry by Nov. 1 if Democrats did not vote to end the shutdown. A pair of federal judges ruled on Friday that the administration would have to pay out the food stamp benefits for November, either in full or partially. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins affirmed the memo during a Friday press conference, “There is a contingency fund at USDA, but that contingency fund, by the way, doesn’t even cover, I think, half of the $9.2 billion that would be required for November SNAP. But it is only allowed to flow if the underlying program is funded.” USDA CHIEF WARNS ‘WE’RE RIGHT AT THE CLIFF’ AS 40 MILLION AMERICANS BRACE FOR FOOD STAMP CUTOFF Nothing typified the dysfunction over the benefits, which 42 million Americans rely on, more than an explosion on the Senate floor this week between Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. Luján tried to force a vote on his bill that would fund both food stamps and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), but was promptly blocked by an angry Thune, who argued that Democrats have had 13 chances to fund the program through the shutdown. “This isn’t a political game, these are real people’s lives we’re talking about,” Thune said. “And you all have just figured out, 29 days in, that, oh, there might be some consequences.” Democrats contend that Trump and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, are actively choosing not to fund the program, given that there is roughly $5 billion in an emergency contingency fund that the administration could dip into. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., charged that it was “Trump’s choice.” “He’s got $5 billion that he could be using right now to help people, to help people feed their kids, and he’s choosing not to do that,” he said. “What he’s doing is sick, deliberately making this shutdown more painful as a means to try to get Democrats to sign on to an immoral, corrupt budget.” The argument has been much the same in the House of Representatives, which passed the GOP’s federal funding bill on Sept. 19. Both Republicans and Democrats appear worried, however. SCHUMER, DEMS CALL ‘BULL—-‘ ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OVER FOOD STAMP SHUTDOWN THREAT “I just left the local food pantry in my district and was speaking with seniors there, and they’re all very concerned,” Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., whose district is home to more than 120,000 SNAP recipients, told Fox News Digital. “They agree with me that the Senate, beginning with their own senator, Senator Schumer, should vote to continue the existing funding levels that they previously voted for four times and prevent this unnecessary pain.” There is a desire among both sides of the aisle to fund the program before the government reopens, but the likelihood of piecemeal bills, or “rifle-shots,” making it to the floor was squashed by Thune during the week. Both Luján and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have bills that would fund food stamps, with Hawley’s bill having 29 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Schumer. One of the co-sponsors, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital that the administration’s argument, in part, was because the $5 billion in the contingency fund was not enough to cover a month’s worth of food stamp benefits. “It’s hurricane season, and that’s what it’s really satisfying,” he said. “But it’s not enough, either way. We’ve tried 14 times to be able to fully fund SNAP — once with an actual appropriation bill … to say, ‘let’s just fund it for the entire year,’ 13 times to do short term. It’s a little frustrating. Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying, ‘Well, find some way to fund it for a week or so, move things around.’” But on the House side, it’s not clear if Democrats nor Republicans have the appetite for piecemeal bills during the shutdown. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has consistently said he will only call the House back into session if Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government. Meanwhile, Fox News Digital asked Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., during a press conference on SNAP this week whether he was discussing food stamp legislation with his Senate counterparts. “I’m familiar with the proposals, and I know that many of my colleagues … have proposed legislation here in the House as well. Those conversations will continue,” Neguse said. But, “ultimately,” he added, “legislation doesn’t need to be passed in order for these funds to be released. It is the law.”
Obama the ‘campaign closer’ for Democrats in top 2025 elections as party aims to rebound
In the final stretch leading up to Election Day 2025, former President Barack Obama is everywhere. From coast to coast, the former president is hoping to help push fellow Democrats over the finish line in the most high-profile and consequential ballot box showdowns this year as his party aims to rebound following last year’s election setbacks. On Saturday, with just three days to go until Election Day, Obama will headline rallies in New Jersey and Virginia, the only two states holding elections for governor this year. And last week he weighed in on another crucial ballot box showdown. HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING ON THE 2025 ELECTIONS “A lot of us do not believe that politicians should choose their voters, they believe the voters should choose who’s going to represent them. That’s the meaning of democracy,” the former two-term president said as he joined California Gov. Gavin Newsom on an organizing call for California’s Proposition 50. California voters are deciding whether to pass the proposition, which will give congressional redistricting powers in the left-leaning state back to the Democrat-dominated legislature over the coming years. The move would likely create up to five more blue-leaning U.S. House seats in the nation’s most populous state, and counter new maps drawn in GOP-dominated Texas, Missouri, and North Carolina that will likely create up to seven Republican-leaning districts. FIVE KEY RACES TO WATCH ON ELECTION DAY 2025 It’s part of a broad effort by the GOP to pad its razor-thin House majority to keep control of the chamber in the midterms, when the party in power traditionally faces political headwinds and loses seats. Democrats need a pickup of just three seats to win back control of the House. President Donald Trump and his political team are aiming to prevent what happened during his first term in the White House when Democrats reclaimed the House majority in the 2018 midterm elections. Obama argued that the Trump-led effort by Republicans across the country is “brazen.” “The problem that we are seeing right now is that our current president and his administration is explicitly saying that we want to change the rules of the game mid-stream in order to insulate ourselves from the people’s judgment,” the former president said as he joined Newsom. Obama, who is appearing in “Yes on 50” TV ads, said that passing the proposition in California would give Democrats “a chance, at least, to create a level playing field in the upcoming midterm elections.” BATTLE FOR GOVERNOR IN THIS CLOSELY WATCHED RACE MAY BE HEADED FOR A PHOTO FINISH The former president is also appearing in ads in New Jersey for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who’s locked in a close contest with GOP rival Jack Ciattarelli in the race to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat. And he’s starring in spots for former Rep. Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, who’s facing off against Republican rival Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears in the showdown to succeed term-limited GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin. For Democrats, who are aiming to escape the political wilderness after losing control of the White House and Senate majority and falling short in winning back the House last year, the 2025 ballot box showdowns are their first major shot at redemption, and they hope that Obama’s two-state swing will energize their base voters. But for the former president, whose crowning domestic achievement — the Affordable Care Act, which is better known as Obamacare — is front-and-center in the current federal government shutdown and a top issue on the 2025 campaign trail, his return to the campaign trail is also about protecting his legacy. “President Obama reminds us what we can accomplish when we leaders are unafraid to take on big challenges to deliver,” Sherrill said in a statement. “He led historic efforts to insure millions of Americans and lower healthcare costs.” Obama is often referred to as the Democrats’ campaign closer as they point to his recurring role since leaving office nine years ago as the party’s most effective campaign trail communicator. According to a Gallup poll conducted in January, Obama had a 59% favorable rating among Americans, higher than any other living former president. And among Democrats, his favorable rating stood at an astronomical 96%. “He’s the best communicator of our generation. The pathway back lies largely in meeting people where they are, and President Obama showed in his two election victories that he can do that,” seasoned Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo told Fox News Digital. But Erin Maguire, a veteran Republican strategist and communicator who served in top communications positions for then-House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, for Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign, and later led communications for Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, disagrees. “It shows what a vacuum of leadership there is in the Democrat Party that Obama has to be the closer here,” she emphasized. Pointing to Trump’s come-from-behind 2016 White House victory, Maguire argued “there was a complete rejection of the Obama era when Donald Trump was elected to office. . . . For Democrats, this just shows what a monumental mess their whole party is that Obama has to be the strongest voice on any of these races.”
Dem candidates lean on Obama in final stretch of campaign as Obamacare premiums prepare to spike
Former President Barack Obama is hitting the campaign trail this weekend in an attempt to shore up support for Democrats, Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., who are running for governor in their respective states. Obama will join Spanberger at Old Dominion University in Norfolk in the morning before heading to Newark to stump for Sherrill at a get-out-the-vote rally later in the afternoon. The former president is reprising his role as campaign closer as he remains the most widely recognized leader in the Democratic Party. This latest re-emergence, however, comes as the country reels from a protracted government shutdown over the last remaining piece of his legacy, the Affordable Care Act, more popularly known as “Obamacare.” With Obamacare subsidies expiring in December, Democrats have made it clear they will not vote to reopen the government without extending the subsidies. ‘THE PANDEMIC’S OVER’: GOP, DEM SENATORS SPAR ON CAMERA OVER COSTLY OBAMACARE SUBSIDIES Since its enactment, Obamacare has offered subsidies in the form of tax credits for health insurance premiums on plans purchased through the ACA’s exchanges based on enrollees’ income levels. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted enhanced premium tax credits in 2021 that were extended by Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act through the end of 2025 — with the policy now caught up in the shutdown debate. In a floor speech just a few days into the shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., proclaimed that “if these ACA premium tax credits aren’t extended, the average fifty-five-year-old couple making $85,000 a year would see their premiums not just double, but triple to $25,000 a year.” “That is all Democrats want to fix. We are on the side of the people. The people know it and want it and need it,” said Schumer. When former President Barack Obama signed the legislation into law in 2010, he promised it would “lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1T in the next two decades.” Obama also promised that “ten years from now, people will look back and say, this was the right thing to do.” NO 2 HOUSE DEMOCRAT SAYS HEALTHCARE DRIVES PARTY’S STRATEGY AS SHUTDOWN HEADS INTO NEXT WEEK But now, over ten years later, Republicans argue Obamacare has done the opposite, lowering the quality of healthcare while increasing insurance premiums and the deficit. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told FOX Business, “Look at how much this is all costing us. Obamacare was sold on a lie. The costs have skyrocketed.” “Obama promised you wouldn’t lose your doctor. Well, you did. You wouldn’t lose your plan, you did. You were supposed to save $2,500 a family, that was a lie. You were supposed to save over a hundred million dollars of our federal budget,” said Scott. About 24 million Americans are enrolled in health insurance plans and open enrollment for 2026 opens on Nov. 1, with insurers notifying members about increases in insurance premiums that are coming next year. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that health insurance premiums through the Obamacare exchanges are set to increase 26% on average in 2026. On state-operated ACA exchanges, the average benchmark (or second-lowest cost) silver tier premium that’s used to calculate the tax credit is set to rise 17%, whereas states using Healthcare.gov are rising 30% on average, according to KFF. OBAMA THE ‘CAMPAIGN CLOSER’ FOR DEMOCRATS IN TOP 2025 ELECTIONS AS PARTY AIMS TO REBOUND The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds extending the expiring premiums would increase the deficit by roughly $350 billion through 2035, while the Washington Post reports that average Obamacare premiums are set to rise 30% next year. Thus, while Obama re-enters the political scene to boost Democrats, he may also have to defend his own legacy as the shutdown enters its second month, and critical federal agencies begin to buckle under the pressure of having to operate without funding.
Acquittal of man who urged violence against Trump puts First Amendment in spotlight
The First Amendment won out this week in a court case over a man who had repeatedly called for President Donald Trump’s assassination and openly fantasized about his violent demise. A jury in Virginia acquitted the man, Peter Stinson, of one charge of soliciting a crime of violence, raising questions about when speech is protected by the Constitution and when it becomes incriminating. A former longtime Coast Guard officer, Stinson had called for someone to “take the shot” in reference to Trump, according to court papers. “Realistically the only solution is violence,” Stinson wrote. Stinson said he “would twist the knife after sliding it into [Trump’s] fatty flesh” and that he “would be willing to pitch in” for a hitman contract. TED CRUZ SAYS HATE SPEECH ‘ABSOLUTELY’ PROTECTED BY FIRST AMENDMENT FOLLOWING CHARLIE KIRK’S ASSASSINATION “He wants us dead. I can say the same thing about him,” Stinson wrote in another post during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A witness for the defense, Professor Jen Golbeck of the University of Maryland, said people “rooting for Trump to die online” is common. “On one hand, I would not encourage anyone to post those thoughts on social media,” Golbeck said, according to the Washington Post. “On the other hand, I can’t count the number of people who I saw post similar things. . . . It’s a very common sentiment. There’s social media accounts dedicated to tracking whether Trump has died.” Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that one issue with the charges in Stinson’s case was that it was not clear whom Stinson was soliciting to carry out the crime. “Solicitation is when it’s directly tied to the crime. So, if he contacts an actual hit man and tries to arrange some sort of hit contract, that’s solicitation,” VanderVeen told Fox News Digital. “Without more . . . that probably does not meet the elements of actual solicitation.” Stinson’s attorneys argued in court documents that their client’s posts were not threats but rather “political advocacy that the First Amendment was squarely designed to protect.” “They lack the ‘specificity, imminence, and likelihood of producing lawless action’ required to fall outside constitutional protection,” the attorneys said. The jury acquittal, which was handed down quickly after a two-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, came at a time when political violence has taken the spotlight, particularly in the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination and a string of recent violence toward immigration enforcement officers, and as Republican and Democratic political figures continuously face threats. A person convicted of attempting to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh had taken concrete steps by searching the internet for mass shootings, discussing killing a Supreme Court justice in internet chats and showing up armed at Kavanaugh’s house in 2022. A man who participated in the Jan. 6 riot was convicted by a judge in a separate case of firearms charges and making a hoax threat aimed at former President Barack Obama. He was sentenced this week to time served after he livestreamed himself driving around the former president’s neighborhood and saying he was “working on a detonator.” He was found with a machete and illegal weapons. In a looming constitutional test, another man is facing charges of threatening federal judges by sending hundreds of ominous messages through the Supreme Court website referencing several justices’ graphic murders. He tried to have his case tossed out over First Amendment concerns, but a judge denied the request, saying a jury would need to weigh that argument. BONDI ‘HATE SPEECH’ REMARKS SPARK TORRENT OF CRITICISM FROM CONSERVATIVES Presidents, senators, House lawmakers and members of the judiciary routinely speak about facing a range of threats, whether in public forums or through direct messages. One legal test in these cases came in 1969, when the Supreme Court decided in favor of a protester who allegedly had told a group of people while discussing getting drafted for the Vietnam War that if he was handed a rifle, the first man he wanted to kill was President Lyndon Johnson. His remark was political hyperbole rather than a “true threat,” the high court found. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” Stinson was initially charged with two counts of a threat against the president, but the DOJ shifted course and brought the one solicitation charge against him. DOJ lawyers argued that Stinson’s incessant violent comments on X and Bluesky, coupled with self-identifying as an Antifa member, met the charging criteria, but prosecutors failed to convince a jury that the speech was more than bluster. In the case of Kirk’s murder, finger-pointing ensued. Republicans blamed inflammatory rhetoric from Kirk’s political opponents for inciting his death. Attorney General Pam Bondi stirred the conversation by saying in an interview after Kirk’s death that the DOJ would “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Bondi later walked back her comment, saying speech that “crosses the line into threats of violence” is punishable by law. In cases of inciting violence, according to VanderVeen, speech remains protected when there is a lacking a nexus between the words and the attack. “Incitement is more about the imminence. . . . How much time would have to pass between that person’s speech and the actual unlawful act of the violence?” VanderVeen said, noting that inciting violence typically involves addressing a mob. “If someone’s saying, ‘Violence is good,’ but there’s no imminent lawless action there, someone else has to say, ‘That guy’s right, that violence is good. I’m going to start doing violence,’” VanderVeen said. “At that point, that’s on the person doing the violence.”
Boasberg’s role in ‘Arctic Frost’ probe sparks fury from GOP senators, despite local rules
Republican senators issued a torrent of criticism against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg this week after it was revealed that he had signed off on subpoenas and gag orders issued as part of former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation — though a cursory review of court rules suggests it is far less provocative than lawmakers have claimed. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., were among the Republicans who blasted Boasberg as an “activist” judge, and Cruz, for his part, suggested Boasberg should be impeached. “My assumption,” Cruz fumed, is “that Judge Boasberg printed these things out like the placemats at Denny’s — one after the other.” MAJOR PHONE CARRIERS REVEAL JACK SMITH’S SUBPOENAS FOR REPUBLICAN SENATORS’ RECORDS At issue were subpoenas and gag orders issued by former special counsel Jack Smith’s team as part of its probe into President Donald Trump’s actions in the wake of the 2020 election. The redacted documents were made public this week by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. They included subpoenas of phone records for 10 senators and one House lawmaker, and gag orders sent to Verizon and AT&T instructing them not to notify lawmakers of the subpoena. (Verizon complied, but AT&T did not.) Both the subpoenas and gag orders were signed by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, according to the newly released documents — a detail that prompted fresh criticism and indignation from some of the Republicans in question, including Cruz, who blasted the investigation in question as “worse than Watergate” and a gross violation of prosecutorial powers. Blackburn blasted Boasberg as an “activist” judge. Some lawmakers further argued for his impeachment as a result of his involvement. In fact, his role in the process is far from surprising. WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS? Local rules for the federal court system in D.C. explicitly state the chief judge “must hear and determine all proceedings before the grand jury.” The subpoenas and gag orders signed by Boasberg were signed in May 2023 — roughly two months into his tenure as the chief judge for the federal court. It’s unclear whether Sens. Cruz or Blackburn were aware of this rule, and they did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment. But it’s also not the first time Judge Boasberg previously noted his oversight of these matters as the chief judge for D.C. — including in the special counsel probe in question. Boasberg explained the rule in question in June 2023, when he granted, in part, a request from media outlets to unseal a tranche of redacted documents related to the subpoena and testimony of former Vice President Mike Pence in the same probe. (He explained in a lengthy public memo that he did so because the press movant were seeking record that Pence himself had discussed publicly.) Still, the controversy comes as Boasberg has found himself squarely in Trump’s crosshairs, after he issued a temporary restraining order in March blocking Trump’s use of a 1798 wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. Until that point, however, Boasberg had largely avoided making headlines. JACK SMITH DEFENDS SUBPOENAING REPUBLICAN SENATORS’ PHONE RECORDS: ‘ENTIRELY PROPER’ A graduate of Yale, Oxford University and Yale Law School, Boasberg clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit before joining the Department of Justice as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He was tapped in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve on the D.C. Superior Court, where he served until 2011, when he was nominated by President Barack Obama to the federal bench in D.C. in 2011. His confirmation vote soared through the Senate with a 96-0 vote of approval, including with the support of Sen. Grassley and other Republicans named in the subpoena. Boasberg in 2014 was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, comprised of 11 federal judges hand-selected by the chief justice. Former special counsel Jack Smith, for his part, has since defended his decision to subpoena the Republican lawmakers’ phone records, which Fox News Digital reported includes phone records for a four-day period surrounding the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. They did not include the contents of phone calls or messages, which would require a warrant, but they did include “[call] detail records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages” and phone number, subscriber, and payment information. His lawyers told Senate lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that the decision to do so was “entirely proper” and is consistent with Justice Department policy. Fox News’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Bipartisan senators call on Hegseth to release strike orders on alleged drug boats in Caribbean
A bipartisan pair of senators are calling on Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth to hand over copies of the orders issued to strike boats in the Caribbean allegedly carrying narco-terrorists. Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., released two letters they sent to Hegseth in recent weeks in response to the repeated strikes on suspected drug boats. The first letter, which was issued on Sept. 23, explained the legal requirements for congressional oversight over the military’s executed orders, including that congressional defense committees must be provided copies of the orders within 15 days of being issued. “Unfortunately, the Department has not complied with this requirement,” the letter reads. HEGSETH SAYS MILITARY CONDUCTED ANOTHER STRIKE ON BOAT CARRYING ALLEGED NARCO-TERRORISTS The second letter, issued on Oct. 6, seeks a written opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) on the domestic or international legal basis for conducting the strikes and related operations. Reports indicate that the OLC produced a legal opinion justifying the strikes, which numerous lawmakers have been demanding in recent weeks. The senators’ letter also asked for a complete list “of all designated terrorist organizations and drug trafficking organizations with whom the President has determined the United States is in a non-international armed conflict and against whom lethal military force may be used.” “To date, these documents have not been submitted,” Reed’s office said in a news release on Friday. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have urged the Trump administration to release information related to the strikes. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration on Thursday after it excluded Democrats from briefings on the strikes, a move he called “indefensible and dangerous.” SEN WARNER BLASTS TRUMP ADMIN FOR EXCLUDING DEMOCRATS FROM BRIEFINGS ON BOAT STRIKES: ‘DEEPLY TROUBLING’ On Wednesday, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee also penned a letter demanding to review the legal justification behind the series of boat strikes they say appear to violate several laws. “Drug trafficking is a terrible crime that has had devastating impacts on American families and communities and should be prosecuted. Nonetheless, the President’s actions to hold alleged drug traffickers accountable must still conform with the law,” the letter states. The strikes have also garnered scrutiny from Republicans, including Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who raised concerns about killing people without due process and the possibility of killing innocent people. Paul has cited Coast Guard statistics that show a significant percentage of boats boarded for suspicion of drug trafficking are innocent. The senator has also argued that if the administration plans to engage in a war with Venezuela after it has targeted boats it claims are transporting drugs for the Venezuela-linked Tren de Aragua gang, it must seek a declaration of war from Congress. In the House, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., has made similar statements. A report published on Friday suggested the U.S. military was planning to strike military installations in Venezuela, but President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the report was inaccurate. This comes as Hegseth announced the U.S. military on Wednesday struck another boat carrying alleged narco-terrorists. The strikes were carried out in the Eastern Pacific region at the direction of Trump, killing four men on board. That was the 14th strike on suspected drug boats since September. A total of 61 people have reportedly been killed while three survived, including at least two who were later repatriated to their home countries. The Pentagon has refused to release the identities of those killed or evidence that drugs were on board.
WATCH: Dems dodge on whether Obamacare is worth shutting down government: ‘Ask a Republican’
As the shutdown enters its second month, Democrats dodged questions on whether their hardline stance on extending Obamacare subsidies is worth keeping federal workers without pay and risking benefits through the government closure. Asked by Fox News Digital whether it is worth continuing the standoff over Obamacare as federal workers go weeks without pay and benefits lag, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., answered, “We have to ask a Republican, because the Republicans have agreed to exactly zero negotiations.” “Donald Trump is out flying around the world, the Republicans here in the Senate won’t do a damn thing without Donald Trump telling them to, and the House Republicans are now on their sixth week of paid vacation,” Warren continued. “So, you know, we’d like to sit down and negotiate, but we’ve got no Republicans on the other side.” President Donald Trump embarked on a diplomatic tour to Asia this week, visiting with leaders from several different countries, both friendly and unfriendly to the U.S., including South Korea, Japan and China. GOVERNMENT LIMPS DEEPER INTO SHUTDOWN CRISIS WITH NO DEAL IN SIGHT House Republicans, meanwhile, have been in recess, with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., indicating the body will remain thus until the Senate agrees to the House-passed budget continuing resolution bill to reopen the government. When asked the same question, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., also placed the blame on Trump, saying, “He’s got to agree to live by the deal we come up with; thus far we’ve not been able to get him to agree.” “The issue that matters the most to me in opening government is getting the president to guarantee that if we open it, he won’t then tear up the deal,” Kaine added. “We have to do a budget deal for 30 days or 45 days, whatever is done, but he has to agree that if you do that, he won’t then the next day start firing more people, canceling projects.” Kaine credited Trump for finding funds to pay U.S. troops, “when the House refused to come back to take up a military pay bill,” saying, “I think that’s important.” Still, he also ripped on the president, saying, “Nobody should go hungry, nobody should go without pay. President Trump has billions of dollars in a contingency fund for staff that Congress put there for this moment and he is cruelly refusing to use it, and that’s all on him.” THUNE, GOP REJECT PUSHING ‘RIFLE-SHOT’ GOVERNMENT FUNDING BILLS DURING SHUTDOWN Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., meanwhile, called Trump’s stance “as fabulously immoral as any act seen by any president ever.” “The funding is there for November, $5.5 billion,” he said, “The president has the authority to distribute those funds.… But the president decided to attack the welfare of America’s children as a bargaining chip.” Faced with the question, Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., said, “Republicans are giving us two choices: either take health care away from millions of people or take food away from millions of people and don’t pay the troops. I don’t think that’s the choice that we’re facing.” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., shot back, “You’re talking to the wrong Democratic senator, because I voted for the continuing resolution 13 times.” SENATE DEMOCRATS DEFY WHITE HOUSE WARNINGS, AGAIN BLOCK GOP BID TO REOPEN GOVERNMENT Pressed further on why more Democratic senators haven’t followed suit, Cortez-Masto said, “You’ve got to talk to my colleagues.” Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., also framed the issue as one of affordability, saying, “The Republicans in the House haven’t been to work in six weeks. So, it shows how callous and uncaring they really are. They need to reopen this government immediately.” “We also need to ensure that we don’t inflict any further pain. We’ve inflicted so much pain on hardworking, working-class Americans who cannot afford not only the insurance and healthcare, they can no longer afford groceries,” she said, adding, “This administration is causing our economy to fail and our hurting families every day.” Alsobrooks noted, “I have voted on eight different occasions to reopen the government and, you know what, the Republicans need to come to the table and negotiate something that allows us both the reopen this government and to make sure that we are ensuring that Americans are able to afford health care coverage.”
Turkish prosecutors hand 11 people life sentences over ski resort blaze
Thirty-four children were among 78 people killed in the deadly blaze, which occurred during the school holidays. By News Agencies Published On 1 Nov 20251 Nov 2025 Click here to share on social media share2 Share A Turkish court has sentenced 11 people to life in prison over a fire that killed 78 people at a hotel in a ski resort in northwest Turkiye’s Bolu mountains in January. Among those sentenced on Friday were Halit Ergul – the owner of the Grand Kartal Hotel, which sits in the Kartalkaya ski resort about 295km (183 miles) east of Istanbul – according to state-run broadcaster TRT Haber. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list The court also sentenced Ergul’s wife, Emine Ergul, and their daughters, Elif Aras and Ceyda Hacibekiroglu – all of whom were part of the hotel’s management team. The deadly blaze broke out overnight in the restaurant of the Grand Kartal on January 21, quickly engulfing the 12-storey hotel, where 238 guests were staying. Thirty-four children were among 78 people killed in the fire, which occurred during the school holidays when many families from Ankara and Istanbul head to the Bolu mountains to ski. Another 137 people suffered injuries during the incident, as panicked hotel guests were forced to jump from windows in the middle of the night. Also sentenced on Friday were the hotel’s general manager, Emir Aras, as well as the deputy mayor of Bolu, Sedat Gulener, and the director of another hotel, Ahmet Demir, both of whom were reportedly on the board of directors of the company that owned the Grand Kartal. There are a total of 32 defendants in the trial, 20 of whom are in pre-trial detention, according to TRT. It’s unclear when the remaining defendants will appear in court. In total, the convicted were handed 34 aggravated life sentences for the 34 children killed in the disaster. Those in the courtroom greeted the announcement with applause. Advertisement The fire sparked nationwide anger in Turkiye, with questions raised over safety measures in place at the hotel after survivors said no fire alarms went off during the incident, and they had to navigate smoke-filled corridors in complete darkness. Under pressure to act, Turkish authorities quickly arrested nine people in connection with the blaze, while the government appointed six prosecutors to lead an investigation. Speaking to reporters outside the still-smoking hotel, Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya pledged that those “responsible for causing this pain will not escape justice”. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced a day of national mourning, as he served as a pallbearer at a funeral ceremony for the victims the following day. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan attends a funeral ceremony for the victims of the deadly hotel fire at Kartalkaya ski resort in Bolu, Turkiye, on January 22, 2025 [Adem Altan/Pool via Reuters] Adblock test (Why?)
Trump says not planning US strikes on Venezuela
United States President Donald Trump has said he is not considering strikes within Venezuela, appearing to contradict his own comments earlier this month, amid a major US military build-up in the region. The US has now deployed fighter jets, warships and thousands of troops to the Caribbean, with the world’s largest warship, aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford, on its way towards the Venezuelan coast. Recommended Stories list of 4 itemsend of list When asked by reporters on board Air Force One on Friday if media reports that he was considering strikes within Venezuela were true, Trump answered: “No.” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered the same message as he responded to an article in the Miami Herald that said Washington’s forces were poised to hit Venezuela. “Your ‘sources’ claiming to have ‘knowledge of the situation’ tricked you into writing a fake story,” Rubio said in a post on X. Trump’s brief response on Friday appeared to contrast with remarks he has made about Venezuela on at least two occasions earlier this month. The US president said last week he would not “necessarily ask for a declaration of war” to proceed, saying, “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them.” “Now they [drugs] are coming in by land … you know, the land is going to be next,” he added. The US military has launched a string of strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific since early September, killing at least 62 people and destroying 14 boats and a semi-submersible. Advertisement The Trump administration has said the attacks are targeting alleged drug smuggling, but has yet to present any evidence to the public to substantiate its claims. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk decried the attacks “and their mounting human cost” as “unacceptable” in a statement on Friday. “The US must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats, whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them,” Turk said. Meanwhile, a new YouGov poll published on Friday found that fewer Americans approve of the US Navy’s presence around Venezuela than in September. In the most recent poll, just 30 percent of people surveyed said that they strongly or somewhat approved of the naval deployment, while 37 percent disapprove. By contrast, slightly more people, 36 percent, approved in September, while 38 percent disapproved. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has responded to the US escalation by accusing the US government of “fabricating a new eternal war” against him. He has also denied the US claims about drugs. “Venezuela is a country that does not produce cocaine leaves,” he said last week, while experts say that most drugs are smuggled into the US via the Mexican land border – by US citizens. Trinidad and Tobago puts military on alert Despite the comments by Trump and Rubio, Trinidad and Tobago, which neighbours Venezuela and has been hosting a US warship, put its military on alert on Friday and recalled all personnel to their bases. Trinidadian forces have been placed on “STATE ONE ALERT LEVEL,” a message sent by the army said, according to the AFP news agency. Police said that “all leave is restricted” until further notice. The Trinidad and Tobago Guardian newspaper also confirmed that soldiers had been ordered to report to duty. On Tuesday, Venezuela suspended a major gas deal with neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago, citing the island nation’s reception of the USS Gravely US warship. Trinidad and Tobago has said the warship was there for regular, planned joint military exercises with the United States. US senators seeking answers on ‘anti-drug’ strategy Leaders of the US Senate Armed Services Committee from both the Republican and Democratic parties have said that their requests for information on the legal basis of the US attacks on vessels in the Caribbean have gone unanswered. In a rare bipartisan action, Republican Senator Roger Wicker and Democrat Jack Reed released a statement on Friday, alongside two letters requesting more information on the strikes, addressed to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, dated September 23 and October 6. Advertisement Wicker, who is also the chair of the committee, and Reed, who is the top Democrat, said that to date, the requested documents have not been provided. Adblock test (Why?)
G7 slams Russian attacks on energy as Ukraine decries ‘nuclear terrorism’
The group said Russian attacks are inflicting ‘devastating social, environmental, and economic consequences’ on Ukraine. The energy ministers of the Group of Seven nations (G7) have issued a joint statement condemning Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s energy system, after authorities in Kyiv described Moscow’s most recent barrage as akin to “nuclear terrorism”. In a Friday statement, the G7 energy ministers – representing Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – said Russia’s attacks “continue to inflict devastating social, environmental, and economic consequences on the Ukrainian people”. Recommended Stories list of 3 itemsend of list “Russia’s recent attacks on Ukraine’s natural gas infrastructure have created risks to communities and human lives, weakening civilian infrastructure and the energy security of the Ukrainian people,” it said. The G7 statement said it continues to support the reconstruction of Ukraine’s energy sector “through direct financial assistance, credit facilities, risk insurance, policy and resource alignment, as well as setting conditions for long-term private sector investment”. Over recent weeks, Ukraine has accused Russia of repeatedly attacking critical civilian energy infrastructure ahead of the bitterly cold winter months in order to inflict suffering on its population. Most recently, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko said Moscow’s “goal is to plunge Ukraine into darkness”, after a wave of Russian attacks hit energy facilities in central, western, and southeastern regions of the country on Thursday, killing seven people. “Russia continues its systematic energy terror – striking at the lives, dignity, and warmth of Ukrainians on the eve of winter,” Svyrydenko said. Advertisement “To stop the terror, we need more air defence systems, tougher sanctions, and maximum pressure on the aggressor,” she added. On Friday, Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denounced what it said were “targeted strikes” by Russian forces on substations critical to supplying external power for Ukraine’s nuclear power stations. “Deliberate strikes on civilian energy facilities that directly affect the safe operation of nuclear installations bear the hallmarks of nuclear terrorism and constitute a grave violation of international humanitarian law,” it said. Kyiv announced nationwide limits on electricity supplies to retail and industrial consumers following Thursday’s attacks, while water supplies and heating were also disrupted in some regions. The United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also said three Ukrainian nuclear power plants were forced to reduce output due to the assault. “The dangers to nuclear safety continue to be very real and ever-present,” IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned. “I once again call for maximum military restraint in the vicinity of nuclear facilities,” he added. Moscow denies it targets civilians. It claims its strikes are simply a response to Ukraine’s attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure. Moscow and Kyiv regularly accuse each other of targeting one another’s energy sites, as well as engaging in military activity that compromises safety at Ukraine’s four working nuclear plants. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, seized by Russian forces in the early weeks of Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, has become a prime concern for the IAEA as fighting rages nearby. On October 23, the Russian-installed administration of Zaporizhia said it had repaired a damaged high-voltage line and restored external power to the plant. It had been without external electricity for 30 days and relying on backup diesel generators since September 23, when its last remaining external power line was severed in attacks that each side blamed on the other. Europe’s largest nuclear plant, with six reactors, Zaporizhzhia, currently produces no electricity, but needs external power to cool the nuclear fuel and avoid any catastrophic nuclear incidents. Adblock test (Why?)