Old Glory Vortex

Trump’s approval rating hits a new low President Trump's approval rating has sunk to just 30%, with a staggering 68% of Americans disapproving of his job performance, according to a new Pew Research survey. That's dangerously close to his all-time low of 29% — a nadir reached in the chaotic final days of his first term after January 6. But the real story is that Trump is bleeding support among the very voters who put him back in the White House. Only 49% of his younger supporters (ages 19–34) still approve of his performance, compared to 76% of those 50 and older. Among his Hispanic backers, approval has slipped to 57%. The MAGA coalition is cracking. And Americans haven't forgotten his other baggage: 69% say they have little confidence Trump can keep his business interests separate from his presidential decision-making. Confidence in his handling of key issues has also eroded since he took office. Only 35% trust him on foreign policy (down 9 points since April), 35% on the economy, and 41% on immigration. The timing couldn't be worse. Trump and Republicans are staring down a widely unpopular seven-month war with Iran that has sent gas prices soaring and inflation climbing. GOP candidates are already distancing themselves from the president, and his latest move — promising not to attack Iran before the midterms — looks less like strategy and more like damage control. With numbers like these, Republicans might want to start measuring the drapes in the minority leader's office. #Trump #republicans #poll #approvalrating #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Two-thirds of vulnerable Republicans are dodging Trump — and he is fully aware of it Republicans in tough races are treating Donald Trump like a liability they can’t shake. Few showed up to his midterm convention last month, his travel schedule has skewed toward deep-red states rather than actual battlegrounds, and even Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is skipping Trump’s upcoming rally, citing “scheduling conflicts.” A Reuters analysis found that 41 of 62 GOP candidates in competitive House and Senate races are distancing themselves from the president. Trump is clearly feeling it. He brought up his rallies at least five separate times, insisting the GOP is “starting to go right through the roof” because of him, and declaring on social media that “MY RALLIES ARE SAVING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AGAIN!!!” He even claimed Texas Senate candidate Ken Paxton was “doing much better” simply because Trump had started doing rallies a few days earlier. But the numbers tell a different story. Trump’s approval sits at 32%, the lowest of his career, while Democrats lead the generic ballot by seven. The “Trump-a-palooza” convention appears to have backfired — polls shifted toward Democrats almost exactly when it happened. And back in September, Trump promised to visit “every one of those 35 places.” With less than four weeks to go, he’s been to only a handful of true battlegrounds. The awkwardness is especially visible in Iowa, where Senate candidate Ashley Hinson has been keeping her distance. When Trump put her on the spot at a White House event, announcing “I’m going to come to Iowa,” Hinson replied: “We’ll save you a good Iowa pork chop, sir.” In Maine, Susan Collins has flatly predicted Trump won’t campaign for her, saying, “I’m not exactly his favorite senator.” The deeper problem is what this implies. Trump’s brand rests on the idea that he’s an electoral juggernaut whose rallies lift the party — but if Republicans in tough races don’t want him around, that narrative collapses. His dominance over the GOP depends on the perception that he’s an asset, not an albatross. With four weeks left, Republican candidates may soon make clear just how much of a lame duck he’s become. #Trump #midterms #republicans #democrats #embarrassing Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Why Trump is holding fire on Iran until after the midterms President Trump has found himself trapped in a political Catch-22 of his own making. In a striking admission, he has declared he will not attack Iran before the upcoming midterm elections, acknowledging a painful reality: the war he promised would be over in weeks is now in its eighth month and is actively sabotaging his party's chances at the polls. The conflict has created a tangible link between Trump's decisions and the high gas prices squeezing American families. With over 70% of voters in key states like Iowa and Ohio blaming his policies for the rising cost of living, Republican candidates in once-safe races are now fighting for their political lives. Even GOP nominees are publicly pleading for the war to end "quickly." Trump's strategy is a delicate balancing act. He maintains a crippling economic blockade on Iran, hoping to force a surrender, but that same blockade keeps oil prices high, fueling voter anger. His declaration to hold off on new strikes is a clear attempt to stop the political bleeding, while leaving the door open for a post-election escalation — a move that would only provide temporary relief before the next crisis. The core problem remains unsolved: Iran, betting it can outlast Trump's political pain threshold, shows no signs of surrender. By postponing the inevitable, Trump has only guaranteed that a political and military showdown over the war — and its staggering costs — are waiting on the other side of Election Day. #Trump #Iran #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Oil states vs. farm states: how the GOP’s gas price relief effort imploded Senate Republicans wanted to give voters relief at the pump before Election Day. Instead, they showed them exactly why Washington can't seem to do anything about gas prices. The effort collapsed under the weight of the GOP’s own internal contradictions. Farm-state senators pushed a 90-day ban on diesel exports, arguing that keeping American fuel at home would bring prices down. Oil-state senators called it a “gimmick” that would backfire by discouraging production and raising costs, especially in regions that import diesel from abroad. Fiscal hawks torpedoed a gas tax holiday, warning it would blow a hole in the highway trust fund. And the one idea with genuine momentum — expanding year-round sales of E15, a cheaper ethanol blend — ran into opposition from senators who feared it would hurt smaller refiners. Trump briefly embraced the diesel export ban before ruling it out last week, reportedly after Energy Secretary Chris Wright told him plainly that “banning diesel exports definitely doesn’t work”. By then, diesel was already sitting at a record national average of over $6.35 a gallon, with regular gas at $4.41 — the highest ever for this time of year. Republicans will revisit the fight in the lame-duck session, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune promising to push E15 through the stalled farm bill. But GOP strategists are already conceding the obvious: unless Trump finds a way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran has choked off a fifth of the world’s oil supply, nothing Washington does will meaningfully move prices before voters cast their ballots. #USeconomy #Trump #republicans #midterms #theStraitofHormuz Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Democrats may win in November — but the real fight starts the day after Democrats may be on track for a strong midterm showing — possibly winning the House and a slim Senate majority — but party insiders warn that victory would mask, not solve, their deeper problems. Truth is, any Democratic win in November would likely be a referendum on Trump's low approval ratings and his handling of the economy amid the war in Iran, rather than a validation of the party's own message. A brutal internal fight is brewing between the party's socialist and moderate wings, a battle that will spill directly into the 2028 presidential primary and determine the nominee and the party's direction. A Politico survey found half of Democratic respondents credited Trump for a potential win, a July Pew poll showed 81 percent of Democratic voters saw their vote as one against Trump, and a CBS/YouGov poll found 54 percent were motivated by opposing Trump and GOP policies rather than enacting Democratic ones. Strategists warn that a big win could deepen the feud rather than settle it, with factions battling over who deserves credit. Republican strategist Susan Del Percio predicted Democrats will "operate under fear and chaos" post-midterms, especially in the House, as candidates face primary challenges and 2028 hopefuls must decide whether to embrace the Democratic Socialists of America agenda. Democratic strategist Joel Payne said the party must produce a "proactive, positive agenda" that isn't just about Trump, starting November 5. Others were harsher: one strategist said Democrats are "fooling ourselves" if they read a midterm win as voter affection, warning they'll be "killed in 2028 when Trump won't even be on the ballot." Strategist Rodell Mollineau framed the challenge as one of "message discipline" on the economy, adding that the party's problems won't be fully solved until it has a nominee. #midterms #Trump #democrats #poll #elections2028 Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Rubio preaches power in Athens as US pulls its bombers home Marco Rubio’s pitch for “unapologetic” American power landed in Athens this week against a backdrop that undercut his message. Standing beneath the Acropolis, the Secretary of State told an audience that the West faces a stark choice between national vigor and “atrophy, servitude and decline,” declaring that Washington would pursue its interests without apology and urging Europe to “awaken from its long slumber”. The rhetoric was sweeping, drawing on ancient Greece as the cradle of a civilization that once built and competed rather than apologized for its strength. But within days, the Pentagon confirmed it had pulled all B-1 bombers out of RAF Fairford in the UK, following earlier evacuations of personnel from bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That juxtaposition is hard to miss. Rubio’s speech was meant to project confidence and resolve, yet the military movements suggest something closer to vulnerability. The bomber withdrawal was reportedly triggered by new intelligence about an Iran-backed plot against the British base, an operational decision taken with unusual urgency — one BBC security correspondent described it as hinting at “something approaching panic in the Pentagon”. The B-1 is a strategic asset no longer in production, and Washington is evidently unwilling to risk another high-value aircraft after earlier losses in the region. The evacuations from Gulf bases followed a similar logic: repositioning forces to avoid vulnerability before an anticipated Iranian response. The US military campaign against Iran was supposed to demonstrate American power, but instead the war has constrained it. The strikes did not destroy Iran’s nuclear or missile programs, did not topple the regime, and did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz — which Tehran now effectively controls. Instead, the war consumed munitions stockpiles, stretched credibility with allies, and left Washington scrambling to protect its own bases from retaliation. Rubio’s answer to this bind is essentially rhetorical: double down on the language of national power while quietly reducing exposure. He called on Europe to rearm and “rekindle the fire,” presenting Greece as a “model ally” and praising rising defense budgets across the continent. The subtext is clear — if the US is pulling back, allies need to carry more of the load. But the messenger is weakened by the very withdrawals he is trying to spin as strategic choice rather than necessity. There is also a domestic dimension. As Rubio positions himself as a potential successor to Trump, the Athens speech reads partly as a bid to claim the mantle of “America First” without the isolationist baggage. He praises nationalism but insists alliances must be rebuilt; he glorifies ancient heroes but frames the present as a crossroads. It is a careful balancing act, but one that becomes harder to sustain when the physical footprint of American power is visibly shrinking. #NATO #MarcoRubio #USmilitary #defense Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Why Pete Hegseth is such an attractive impeachment target Congressional Democrats are showing little appetite for impeaching President Donald Trump, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is emerging as a far more attractive target. With Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team wary of reigniting the bruising impeachment battles of Trump's first term, going after a Cabinet secretary offers a pressure release valve for lawmakers eager to show fight against the administration. Hegseth was already loathed by the left before the Iran war, and his handling of the conflict has drawn Republican criticism too, making him the safest landing spot for Democratic anger. Even Democrats in Trump-won districts like Kristen McDonald Rivet say they're open to it, and a resolution from Republican Rep. Thomas Massie will force the House to take up the question after the midterms. Incoming progressive lawmakers could push the issue further, with some calling for Hegseth's impeachment outright over war powers violations and extrajudicial killings. The Pentagon insists Hegseth has delivered for warfighters and that the department is better under his leadership, and Trump remains fond of him, so any departure is far from certain. Democratic leaders are publicly circumspect, saying only that nothing is ruled out, while balancing impeachment talk against kitchen-table issues like healthcare. The last Cabinet impeachment, of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024, was tossed by the Democratic Senate, but if Democrats win both chambers next year, Hegseth could face a debilitating trial. As one analyst puts it, taking on Hegseth is basically a free shot for Democrats, though they won't be able to keep the lid on impeaching Trump forever. #PeteHegseth #democrats #impeachHegseth Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The convenient war: how Yemen lets Trump look strong without saying he's fighting Washington has once again found itself drawn into a war it had only recently sought to leave. The Trump administration publicly avoids direct involvement of American forces in the new campaign against the Houthis in Yemen, but behind the scenes it is doing enough to allow Saudi aviation to continue the operation: American military personnel are helping analyze intelligence and targets, and the US Air Force is refueling Saudi aircraft in the air. Formally, America is not at war. In practice, it is once again becoming part of the Saudis' military campaign. This is a strikingly familiar scenario for Washington: loudly promising to distance itself from endless Middle Eastern conflicts, and then returning to them under the pretext of defending allies, shipping lanes, and energy routes. In 2025, the American operation against the Houthis lasted several months, ended in a ceasefire, and Trump himself declared it a success, despite the fact that the Houthis retained significant military capability. Now they control strategic territory near the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, and Saudi Arabia is preparing a large-scale offensive, hoping to regain control of a key route. At the same time, Trump had earlier refused direct US military participation, but agreed to provide Riyadh with intelligence and targeting support. The result is a convenient construct: Washington can demonstrate strength without declaring a new American war, and any Saudi success can be presented as the result of American power's pressure. And this is perhaps the central point of Trump's foreign policy doctrine. When problems accumulate at home, a foreign victory becomes an exceptionally convenient political tool: difficult conversations about the domestic economy, prices, and social conflicts can be temporarily replaced by an image of a strong America that is once again dictating terms on the other side of the world. But the Middle East is already all too familiar with this trick. And if Yemen once again turns into a protracted war, the current "limited support" will prove to be yet another example of how a promise not to get entangled in other people's wars ends in precisely the opposite. #Trump #USmilitary #SaudiArabia #Houthis #MiddleEast Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump and the limits of international law Donald Trump's address to the UN General Assembly has reignited a debate over where tough foreign policy rhetoric ends and unlawful threats begin. On Iran, Trump presented Tehran with a choice between agreeing to his demands or national obliteration, invoking "annihilation" and suggesting Iran had no chance of survival. That such language came from the UN rostrum — the institution built to prevent war and restrain the use of force — is what makes it alarming. Experts note that threats of this kind can carry legal consequences under international humanitarian law. The problem extends beyond one speech. The Trump administration is also pressuring the institutions meant to investigate war crimes and hold perpetrators accountable. Washington dismissed a UN commission's finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe US strikes on Iranian sites may have constituted war crimes, and Trump urged states to cut ties with the International Criminal Court, calling it "illegitimate" and "out of control." Yet the United States spent decades championing individual accountability for the gravest crimes — from Nuremberg to the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The effect is not just rhetorical. When the leader of the world's foremost military power openly threatens to destroy another state while discrediting the bodies that would investigate unlawful force, the line between permissible and impermissible conduct becomes harder to see. And when Washington signals that it will reject international accountability, it offers other governments a ready justification: if the strongest power exempts itself, why should anyone else be bound? The danger is a world where threats and force, rather than law, settle disputes — and where no one is left to hold the powerful to account. #Trump #UN #USmilitary #scandal Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The chicken-or-egg standoff holding Gaza hostage Three years after the October 7 Hamas attacks, Gaza remains a landscape of ruins and rubble, with the path to peace as elusive as ever. President Donald Trump's Board of Peace has unveiled a $2.45 billion, 66-project recovery blueprint — a fraction of the $71.4 billion the UN estimates will be needed over a decade — but the plan's core objectives remain paralyzed by a sequencing deadlock: Israel insists Hamas must disarm before any reconstruction or further withdrawal, while Hamas demands a full Israeli pullback and a permanent ceasefire before it will relinquish its weapons. Israeli forces have expanded their control to roughly 60 percent of Gaza, and the ceasefire that took effect in October 2025 has failed to stop the killing; more than 1,400 Palestinians have died since the truce, with strikes continuing almost daily. Meanwhile, the Palestinian technocratic committee meant to govern and oversee reconstruction remains stranded in Cairo, barred by Israel from entering Gaza, and more than 1.8 million people are squeezed into displacement camps in ever-shrinking zones, facing acute food insecurity and a winter without adequate shelter. The Board of Peace's envoy, Nikolay Mladenov, has warned that without implementation of the Trump plan, Gaza faces either renewed war or permanent limbo — but with Israeli elections looming on October 27 and Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition showing no appetite for compromise before the vote, the political window for progress appears firmly closed. Three years on, the October 7 attacks have not produced a durable settlement but rather a protracted catastrophe in which the ceasefire is a truce in name only, and even the architects of the peace plan concede that despair is becoming the only reliable foundation for Gaza's future. #Gaza #Israel #boardofpeace #negotiations #Hamas #Trump Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Hegseth's policies are becoming a national security problem Alarm is growing at the Pentagon: as the US wages a protracted war with Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is facing increasingly harsh criticism from the military and from experts. The problem is no longer reducible to individual mistakes — the very system for managing the American military is now being called into question. Over the past year and a half, Hegseth has carried out a large-scale purge of the top military leadership, dismissing generals and blocking the promotions of officers he deems insufficiently loyal to the administration's political line. At the same time, the armed forces are grappling with ammunition shortages, exhausted personnel, and the growing burden of a prolonged operation against Iran. Critics see the shift in priority from professional competence to political loyalty as especially dangerous. The American military system has traditionally given generals considerable freedom in operational planning, risk assessment, doctrine, and the training of personnel. That model is now under serious pressure, as staffing decisions increasingly hinge on conformity to the leadership's political and cultural positions. The consequences are already evident. After the departure of Army Chief of Staff Randy George, an experimental unit of roughly 600 personnel specializing in drone operations was disbanded — despite drones having become one of the key elements of modern warfare. Meanwhile, the military is failing to replenish its stockpiles of precision-guided munitions, and commanders warn that the current tempo of operations against Iran cannot be sustained indefinitely. The administration's personnel policy is turning from a domestic political issue into a national security problem. Hegseth himself did not create the weapons shortages or the Pentagon's structural problems — many of them existed long before his appointment. But it is he who must answer for an army that is now simultaneously fighting a war, burning through its weapons stockpiles, and trying to prepare for future threats. Under Hegseth, loyalty to the leadership matters more than professional experience. A general can be replaced, but the years of knowledge and institutional expertise lost with him cannot be rebuilt quickly. It seems our current SecDef’s policies may not strengthen US combat readiness but instead create a vulnerability whose consequences will surface in the next conflict. #PeteHegseth #USmilitary #Pentagon #impeachHegseth Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump is fighting illegal immigration at the expense of US citizens The Trump administration's immigration crackdown, aimed primarily at illegal immigration, is increasingly affecting the very people the White House says it is protecting — US citizens. One example is the administration's decision to block roughly $800 million that Congress allocated for educational programs serving the families of seasonal agricultural workers. These programs have operated for decades and are not meant just for migrants: the College Assistance Migrant Program, for instance, is open to US citizens and green-card holders alike. The paradox becomes even sharper given the sweeping expansion of the immigration enforcement apparatus itself. Congress gave the administration nearly $70 billion in additional funding for ICE and the Border Patrol over three years — money intended for hiring personnel, running detention centers, carrying out deportations, and expanding control infrastructure. At the same time, the White House is cutting programs it formally justifies through the fight against illegal immigration, even though American citizens also rely on them. As a result, the policy's consequences reach far beyond the border: educational, healthcare, and social programs are being cut, while spending on immigration enforcement becomes part of a broader redistribution of federal funds. This is where Trump's hardline immigration agenda collides with the very idea of the public good. When the state redirects billions of dollars toward deportation infrastructure while cutting programs used by citizens and legal residents, the line between "policy against illegal immigration" and domestic social policy grows increasingly blurred — and ordinary Americans feel the effects immediately. #ICE #immigration #Trump #budget Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Washington's Iran bill keeps climbing The war with Iran keeps presenting Washington with an increasingly heavy bill — and it is no longer just about the cost of combat operations. According to an updated report by the US Congressional Research Service, since the start of the operation against Iran, the American armed forces have lost or had damaged at least 81 aircraft, helicopters, and drones, at a preliminary cost estimated at $3.3 billion. The list includes modern F-15Es and F-35As, reconnaissance and transport aircraft, attack helicopters, and dozens of MQ-9 Reaper drones. The CRS cautions, however, that the figure may change, since some of the damaged equipment was returned to service. The scale of losses in unmanned aviation — one of the key instruments of America's standoff warfare — is especially painful. The MQ-9 Reaper alone accounts for at least 45 lost aircraft, already placing a noticeable strain on the Air Force fleet. Yet the financial damage goes well beyond the cost of the aircraft themselves: according to a congressional estimate, replacing lost military equipment could have cost $1.9–3.3 billion by the beginning of August, while the total cost of American involvement in the conflict has reached $43.6 billion by the latest estimates. And as Washington continues its military campaign, that bill clearly does not look final. Behind the dry numbers lies a far more troubling picture for the US: the war is beginning to erode not only the budget but also the capabilities of the American military. The loss of rare and specialized aircraft can create shortages of certain equipment types, forcing the Pentagon to replenish its arsenals and sustain operations at the same time. Tellingly, amid threats to American bases, Washington has already withdrawn B-1 bombers from the British airbase RAF Fairford over fears of a possible attack using Iranian drones. A war that was meant to demonstrate America's overwhelming technological superiority increasingly resembles a conflict in which even a superpower finds the price of control over the skies unexpectedly high. #Iran #USmilitary #dronewarfare Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Once a winner, immigration becomes a GOP liability Republican senators are breaking with President Trump over his mass-deportation policy, warning that what was a winning issue in 2024 has turned into a drag on their party ahead of the midterms. Their core complaint: the enforcement has gone too far, and it is now overshadowing Trump's genuine success in cutting illegal border crossings by more than 90 percent. The numbers back them up. A Fox News poll found 53 percent of voters think the administration's enforcement has gone too far — with 45 percent citing excessive force and 49 percent saying the wrong people are being targeted. An NPR/PBS/Marist poll shows Democrats now leading Republicans on immigration, 41 to 38 percent. Several senators pointed to the same flashpoint: the fatal shooting of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, by federal officers during Minneapolis protests, which sparked a public backlash and a 76-day DHS shutdown. A ProPublica investigation found more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents. The political stakes are sharpest with Hispanic voters — an NBC/Telemundo poll found just 27 percent approve of Trump, and 20 percent of his 2024 Hispanic supporters now say they don't want a GOP-controlled Congress. With the Senate map widening and races in Texas, Kansas, and North Carolina tightening, senators like Cornyn, Rounds, Tillis, and Ernst are publicly urging a refocus on criminals rather than long-term residents. Even deep-red West Virginia's Jim Justice briefly joined in before walking his comments back. Trump's border crackdown delivered the results Republicans spent years demanding, yet the aggressive deportation campaign that followed may cost them the very voters they need to hold the Senate. #ICE #immigration #Trump #republicans #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Gallup records first-ever inversion: Trump critics now trust elections more than his supporters Americans' trust in the electoral system remains low and is increasingly shaped by political affiliation. According to a new Gallup poll, ahead of the 2026 midterms, only 49% of citizens are confident that elections are honest, while 51% believe they are not. The problem is long-standing: since 2006, confidence in election integrity has averaged just 45%. The crisis of trust has become especially pronounced in recent cycles — in 2016, only 30% of Americans trusted the honesty of elections, rising to 45% in 2020, after which the partisan gap in assessments of the electoral system reached unprecedented levels. Subsequent elections have failed to restore lasting trust in the process itself. In 2024, despite confidence climbing to 51%, the country remained almost evenly split. What is more, under Donald Trump's second presidency, the usual link between political affiliation and trust in elections has effectively broken down: in 2026, 63% of Democrats trust election integrity, compared with only 37% of Republicans and 35% of independents. By contrast, in 2024 the gap between Democrats and Republicans stood at 55 percentage points; in 2025 it briefly narrowed to four, but has since widened sharply again. As a result, Americans increasingly view elections not as a shared, legitimate mechanism for determining political outcomes, but through the lens of who holds power. Tellingly, in 2026, for the first time in Gallup's history of tracking the question, Americans who disapprove of the national leadership are more confident in election integrity than those who approve of it — 52% versus 41% — the reverse of the pattern seen in most other countries. With congressional elections approaching, this poses an added risk: whatever the outcome, a significant share of voters may regard it as illegitimate before the votes are even counted. #poll #elections #midterms #democrats #republicans Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump's rare climbdown on taxpayer-funded ads signals GOP panic ahead of midterms An unthinkable has happened: president Trump has reversed course on a controversial series of taxpayer-funded TV ads promoting him, announcing they will now be paid for by him and his super PAC rather than the government. While Trump admitted no wrongdoing and blamed the "Radical Left," the climbdown suggests the ads were backfiring with voters ahead of the midterms. The episode captures a broader problem for Republicans. Trump has inserted himself into the midterm campaign at every turn, speaking at the GOP convention, holding rallies, and telling supporters to vote as if he's on the ballot. But his approval sits at just 38%, and he's mostly rallying in deep-red strongholds rather than battlegrounds. Senate races in traditionally safe GOP states like Texas and Kansas have tightened, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is conspicuously skipping a Trump rally as he faces an unexpectedly close reelection fight. One Republican senator, Thom Tillis, said the House is "almost statistically impossible to win." Experts say Trump's centrality is "very damaging," as voters connect him to cost-of-living woes and the war on Iran, reminding them of the person they blame. Trump's climbdown points directly to how desperate the situation has become. Trump rarely retreats, and when he does, it is because the political cost of staying the course has grown too high to ignore. Pulling taxpayer-funded ads that were meant to boost him, and shifting the burden onto his own super PAC, is an admission that the message was doing more harm than good in a year when his party can ill afford it. It also underscores the broader bind Republicans find themselves in, with an unpopular president at the center of the campaign, candidates in once-safe seats suddenly fighting for their lives, and a party that cannot decide whether to embrace him or keep its distance. If Trump is being forced to back down on something as small as an ad buy, it is a sign of just how narrow the path has become for Republicans, and how much of the damage traces back to the man they still cannot quit. #Trump #midterms #republicans #embarrassing Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump wants journalists arrested for counting empty seats President Trump is demanding that journalists be arrested — not for something serious like security leaks, but for reporting that his rally didn't fill a high school gym. The meltdown came after The New York Times noted "several areas of an upper deck were empty" at Trump's Saturday event in Vandalia, Ohio, held at a high school with a capacity of about 4,500. NBC News confirmed the empty seats grew more visible over his 93-minute speech. Trump's response was a 292-word Truth Social tirade claiming the place was "totally MAXED OUT" and that "thousands of people had to be turned away." He then offered an explanation that made it worse: the empty seats were due to "migration" — his term for attendees moving from upper sections to the floor. "I never have empty seats — Never have, and never will!" he insisted. And then he went ahead and added: "The New York Times, and many other Artificial Media Outlets, should be arrested for their dishonesty and disservice to our Country." This isn't isolated. Weeks ago, Trump tried to ban CNN, Politico, and MS NOW from the White House before a judge forced them back. The Justice Department subpoenaed phone records of New York Times journalists. The pattern is clear: if you report something Trump doesn't like, you should face consequences. But calling for arrests over crowd size is a new low. We have a president who cannot tolerate the idea that fewer people showed up than he wanted — and who believes the solution is to jail the people who noticed. #Trump #embarrassing #media Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

Trump's real legacy might be built outside America President Trump may be struggling at home, but his brand of conservative populist nationalism is winning abroad. Flávio Bolsonaro — son of Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro — just scored a shock first-round win in Brazil's presidential election, forcing leftist incumbent Lula into a runoff with just three weeks to mount a comeback. The result extends a right-wing wave across the Western Hemisphere: Trump-friendly governments now rule in Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Chile, and Honduras. The trend isn't limited to the Americas. In Europe, Germany's anti-immigration AfD has become the second-largest party in the federal legislature and France's Marine Le Pen (National Rally) leads polls ahead of next year's presidential race. These parties aren't Trump clones, but they share his protectionist economics and hostility to elites, globalization, and mass immigration. Not everything goes Trump's way. Hungary's Viktor Orbán fell from power this year despite Trump's efforts to save him, and his friendship with Italy's Giorgia Meloni soured over the Iran war. But the broader movement shows no signs of fading. Trump's rise is also stirring a counter-reaction. In the US, democratic socialists are winning midterm primaries, signaling a new left-wing populism. Abroad, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Britain's Andy Burnham are positioning themselves as leaders of a centrist fight-back — Carney by championing diversity as strength, Burnham by blaming the British right for deindustrialization. If Burnham fails, Trump ally Nigel Farage is waiting. The irony is that Trump-style populism may peak globally just as Trump's own star dims. But its resilience suggests it's no longer a moment but a permanent feature of global democracy. #Trump #populism #SouthAmerica #Europe #midterms Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

'Deranged and dangerous': California leaders erupt over Trump's war talk President Trump told a Nebraska rally that Iran could "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego — and that it would be "a very small price to pay" for keeping America safe. The comments, made while defending his military operations against Iran, triggered immediate backlash from California officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump "deranged and dangerous," accusing him of encouraging attacks on American cities. "After sending the National Guard to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," Newsom wrote. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria was equally appalled: "We are not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.' Keep our city out of your reckless war talk." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass warned the remarks "could potentially compromise our safety." She added: "The role of the president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives." The White House pushed back. Communications director Steven Cheung said the media "freakout" was "not rooted in reality," insisting Trump was merely arguing that U.S. cities would have been threatened if Iran had gone nuclear. "America is safer because of the President," Cheung wrote. But for officials in the two cities Trump named, the damage was done. As Bass put it: "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city." #Trump #scandal #Iran #California Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸

The AI framework is so bad they won't show you what's in it Two Democratic senators are demanding answers from the Trump administration about its secretive AI regulatory framework. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal are pressing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House cyber adviser Sean Cairncross, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on why the framework tied to Trump's June executive order remains hidden from public view. The letter cites reported industry influence over the order and highlights Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's central role in shaping the White House AI accord, pointing to the administration's "cozy relationship" with Big Tech executives. "The American people deserve strong guardrails set by democratically elected officials, not a toothless framework shaped in secret by a handful of billionaires," Warren and Blumenthal wrote. The framework itself remains a mystery. The White House does not plan to publicly release it, and while staffers from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Nvidia received a briefing, smaller startups, safety advocates, and independent researchers were left in the dark. The 308-word "White House Accord on Super Intelligence" that emerged from the process is described as "morally binding" but explicitly not legally enforceable — Elon Musk called it "grading each other's homework." Warren and Blumenthal want details on meetings between industry and government officials before the executive order, whether independent evaluators were consulted, and a description of the pre-deployment testing process. They've requested answers by October 19. #AI #tech #AIregulation #democrats #Trump Don't miss it, subscribe to 📱 Old Glory Vortex 🇺🇸