❌

Reading view

Nick Shirley and the White House Make Their Relationship Official 

[Essay]

A Paid Man

Nick Shirley finally got a government check. 

It’s a wonder it took so long. For the last year and a half, he’s played the role of quasi-state run media. As the Trump administration flooded a series of cities last year with federal immigration officers, Shirley was at the head of a coterie of influencers who received special access from the Department of Homeland Security while promoting the department’s enforcement operations. 

At times, these influencers received protection from federal immigration enforcement officers. In other instances, the White House suggested that Shirley, and other influencers like him, pointed the way for Trump administration operations. It may sound far-fetched, but as the operation began, Shirley released a video titled “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal” that the White House later cited as a reason to flood Minneapolis with federal immigration agents, outnumbering local law enforcement by a factor of three to one. 

There’s a chicken-and-egg question with Shirley. His investigative videos don’t feature the kind of meticulousness, patience, or attention to detail normally associated with what it takes to uncover a complex fraud ring. In many of the videos, Shirley walks into partly empty buildings, claims that the people there are receiving government funds, and deems it all a scandal. As my colleague Derick Dirmaier noted here recently, Shirley may lack other core competencies, including spelling, color identification, and history. It’s possible that he pointed the way for the White House, but I find that unlikely. Minnesota GOP lawmakers reportedly worked with Shirley on the video; thinking of him as a useful means for the administration to direct attention makes a lot more sense. 

For many people, this raised the question: is Nick Shirley a quasi-Trump admin employee? He and his representatives (mostly his mom, also an internet influencer in her own right) have denied that they’re working at all on behalf of the Trump administration. But on Tuesday, Shirley agreed to accept a nominal fee: $10,000 for his work.

“Nick has been at the forefront of the battle to stop the horrible plague that’s happened within our country,” President Trump said of Shirley this week, adding: “And there’s never been anything like it, what’s happened, and look, it’s been going on for a long time.”

Trump used Shirley to announce a new program in which people can report fraud and receive up to $30,000 from the government if their information results in a conviction. It pales in comparison to the False Claims Act, which allows whistleblowers to receive up to 25% of money recovered if the government takes action based on their case. 

And even by Shirley-an standards, $10,000 is likely more of a symbol than anything else. The notoriety granted him by the White House drove millions of views on his YouTube channel, though that tends not to pay as well as people might assume. He has a merchandise shop going. But Shirley, like many other political influencers, is operating in the Wild West: there are no laws forcing influencers to disclose who pays them. Revelations of how this segment of the political world works have dripped out, leak by leak, but it’s opaque by nature. For Shirley, $10,000 from the White House is far more transparent than usual. 

Link Copied

By Josh Kovensky

[Essay]

The Big, Beautiful Bill Taketh and Giveth Away 

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill slashed SNAP funding and may have caused as many as 1.5 million kids to lose federal nutrition benefits. The bill, now law, gutted federal health care, and more than 2 million children lost coverage between June 2025 and June 2026. It enabled the Department of Education to strip federal loan eligibility from several higher education degrees. In short, it was bad for many children and students in America.

But as with most Trump policies, the OBBA was a windfall for billionaires, especially those associated with major tech companies who cozied up to Trump at the start of his second term and were rewarded with tens of billions of dollars in federal tax cuts and significant tax breaks provided for AI research and development. It’s curious then that on the eve of the midterms, some of the billionaires that benefitted from Trump’s bill are promising new investments aimed at America’s youth.   

On Monday *trillionaire* Trump ally and ex-U.S. government dismantler Elon Musk pledged to give American children a share in his company SpaceX through Trump accounts, long-term investment and savings accounts for American children made possible by the OBBBA. Musk’s statement comes on the heels of a pledge from tech magnates Michael and Susan Dell, who have already started fulfilling their promise to throw $250 to 25 million kids via Trump’s eponymous accounts.

While the Dells made their Trump account pledge in 2025, their Oval Office event with the president announcing their plans to contribute $6.25 billion to Trump accounts came just a month out from the midterms. Musk left just two weeks between his announcement and an election that will be consequential for the GOP. 

With Trump’s open, monetary coercion of grownups failing and Musk having already failed in 2024 to win an election by lining voters’ pockets, perhaps they have decided it might be more effective to target the future financial well-being of voters’ children. The OBBBA might have taken away healthcare coverage and food from millions of children, but hey, thanks to the tax gifts to billionaires, those children can now (maybe) own a share of Space X (current value: $146.76).

“This is exactly what was envisioned,” Trump wrote on social media about Musk’s gift, “when we created TRUMP ACCOUNTS.”

Link Copied

By Layla A. Jones

[Words of Wisdom]

LOL, OK

“If you don’t want communists controlling the US Senate, which is between JAIIIIIIT.” —Donald Trump (still president)

Link Copied

By

[This Effing Guy]

A Bold New Direction for 2028

Fresh off his Russian oligarch-financed Caribbean wedding extravaganza, Don Jr. is apparently having second thoughts — about his dad. For years, Daddy Trump could do no wrong in the tweets of Jr. In fact, some who are close to the matter have called Jr. the “the most MAGA of them all.” But when the president decided to skip Jr.’s wedding start a war with Iran, it seems Jr.’s rose-tinted glasses might have darkened a few shades.

According to an Atlantic exclusive based on anonymous sources close to Don Jr., the President’s son has private disagreements with his father over the Iran war. Wowzers! Private disagreements! If you’re thinking this has a whiff of a presidential run about it, you might not be wrong. There are reports that Jr.’s motivation for marrying Miami socialite Bettina Anderson was that she would make him look more presidential. There is further speculation that the president might have skipped his son’s wedding because he increasingly sees his son as political competition. And now Jr. has come out swinging — by letting some of his friends whisper secretly to the Atlantic that, in private, he disagrees with his dad on one issue. 

With the president’s approval rating hovering around 30%, this sure sounds like the kind of bold new direction the country needs for 2028.

Link Copied

By

[TPM Trivia]

How Much of This Week’s News Do You Remember?

1) In which state has the presence of multiple Dan Sullivan’s running for state Senate been cited as a reason the DOJ is using to take the unprecedented step of intervening to block the certification of the race to help a losing Republican?

2) What popular video game did Republican candidate for Congress in Nevada and neo-Nazi-forum-runner, Marty O’Donnell, write the music for?

3) After his overwhelming reelection in November 1936, how many additional judges did FDR plan to “pack the court” with?

Answers below

Link Copied

By

[Galaxy Brain]

Call Their Bluff

In a bit of a ridiculous headline, Meta — the social media company formerly known as Facebook — cut a deal with Mark Zuckerberg, who of course, founded Facebook and is the CEO of Meta. Mark Zuckerberg is Meta. Meta is Mark Zuckerberg. But here’s what’s really going on: California voters will soon get to weigh in on a wealth tax on billionaires. The proposal, called Proposition 40, will be on the ballot in a few days. Zuckerberg threatened to leave California if voters approve the wealth tax. To persuade him to stay, Meta created a new class of stock that Zuckerberg can now sell to have enough cash to pay the wealth tax, while not giving up any control of the company.

Here’s the real lesson here: Don’t ever listen to anyone who says wealth taxes will backfire. This idea that rich people will just flee the country and everything will just collapse is nonsense. Zuckerberg doesn’t even want to leave California, let alone America. Remember all those people who were going to leave New York City if Mamdani won? Still here. Billionaires are not braver or tougher or smarter than you. Just call their bluff.

Link Copied

By

[Guides]

TPM’s Guide to the Midterms

There’s a lot to pay attention to this year. With Democrats putting up seemingly fantastical numbers in the polls, the map is expanded in ways that no one thought possible a year ago. Is Texas in play? Is Kansas? Looming over it is Trump’s cult of personality, and the lie that any election in which he or his allies run, they win.

This list is an attempt to pinpoint races that tell the story of where America is at this November, explain why, from TPM’s perspective, these races matter, and look ahead to the conversation we’ll be having in coming months.

Link Copied

By

[No Words]

Well, Well, Well, Look Who It Is

People who have been around politics a long time may be struck as I was by the sheriff's signature on this arrest warrant for Amy Acton's stepfather, who at the time was a fugitive. Does the name James Traficant ring a bell? pic.twitter.com/EwoABrTfDS

— Karen Tumulty (@ktumulty) October 21, 2026
Link Copied

By

Trivia answers: 1) Alaska 2) Halo 3) Six

Link Copied

By

  •  

13 Races We Think Will Define the Midterms

There’s a lot to pay attention to this year. With Democrats putting up seemingly fantastical numbers in the polls, the map is expanded in ways that no one thought possible a year ago. Is Texas in play? Is Kansas? Looming over it is Trump’s cult of personality, and the lie that any election in which he or his allies run, they win.

This list is an attempt to pinpoint races that tell the story of where America is at this November, explain why, from TPM’s perspective, these races matter, and look ahead to the conversation we’ll be having in coming months.


1. Peggy Flanagan (D) / Michelle Tafoya (R) — Minnesota Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism. 

What to know:

Michelle Tafoya (R) has been doing well in polls in recent months, showing her within a few points of Peggy Flanagan (D) in what is normally a solidly blue state. That’s inspired the Trump administration to pull out all the stops to put its finger on the scale, rebooting the racial panic it tried to stoke last winter over the state’s Somali population. The capstone of that effort is the administration’s legal gambit to deport Rep. Ilhan Omar (D). It seems unlikely that this is going to land well in a state still recovering from this year’s federal invasion, which claimed the lives of two U.S. citizens. If Flanagan wins, as it still seems she will, Minnesota could end up as a prime candidate for Trump to target with his expected election interference. 

What do the polls say?

It’s close. 


2. The Five Congressional Seats Texas Republicans Redrew Their Map to Win

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Voting rights. 

What to know:

There were few congressional districts in Texas that went untouched by the legislature’s late-2025 redistricting bonanza, carried out, at Trump’s behest, in a mid-cycle gerrymandering bid to help Republicans hold the House regardless of voters’ wishes. Texas Republicans were the first to answer Trump’s call, and the party salivated over the boon they could extract from the giant state. Now, however, it appears that the Texas GOP may have overplayed its hand. In two heavily redrawn districts along the border, Texas’ 28th and 34th, Democrats stand a real chance. After all of Republicans’ work, Cook Political Report rates one, the 28th, represented by Vicente Gonzalez (D), as a “toss-up,” and another, the 34th, represented by Henry Cuellar (D), as “leans Democrat.” GOP spending patterns show that they are not taking the other three — the 9th, the 32nd and the 35th — for granted either. In order to create those five, theoretically pro-GOP districts, many other districts had to give up some Republican votes, ironically turning much of the state into a battleground where Democrats, in the right cycle, could snatch back some seats . 

What do the polls say?

As usual with House races, there aren’t many public polls. But following the Republican money suggests that they are getting uneasy here. 


3. Troy Jackson (D) / Susan Collins (R) — Maine Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Separation of powers, expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

Sen. Susan Collins (R) has been Democrats’ white whale for multiple cycles now, a talented politician who has defied political gravity and hung on in a state that’s only getting bluer. When Democrats’ first choice, Graham Platner, imploded after he was accused of sexual assault, they desperately grappled around for a replacement, landing on former state Senate leader Troy Jackson (D), who put together a lightning-fast nomination campaign. Jackson has not quite made up for lost time, with his truncated campaign and lack of Platner’s charisma keeping this race tight enough to make Democrats nervous.   

He’ll hope to get a boost from ballot mate Hannah Pingree (D), who seems comfortably bound for the governor’s mansion.

What do the polls say?

Recent polls have given Jackson a small edge, but it’s a nail-biter. 


4. Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson (D) / Marshall Rawson (R) — Florida House District 10

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Even in today’s Republican Party, it’s rare that you have someone who attended the Charlottesville white supremacist rally run for a state House seat. But Marshall Rawson (R) is one such candidate. Rawson activism with a neo-Confederate group called League of the South has been known for a decade, but it didn’t emerge until after he won his primary that he had attended the biggest white supremacist rally in a generation, at which participants famously chanted “Jews will not replace us.” TPM broke the story of Rawson’s attendance in September. 

What do the polls say?

The Florida House district is extremely Republican, and Rawson will likely win. 


5. Jon Ossoff (D) / Mike Collins (R) — Georgia Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, election denial. 

What to know:

This race is one of several that will determine control of the Senate. But it also features perhaps the most extreme candidate running for the chamber this cycle, Mike Collins (R), who not only is slavishly loyal to president Trump, but has joked about killing immigrants, retweeted a video of white university students making monkey sounds at a Black woman, and cheered the January 2026 FBI raid on Fulton County’s election office with a since-deleted post on X: “Go get ‘em Kash.” Given this, it may not be surprising that he has constantly been asked to explain why so many white nationalist and anitsemitic figures have turned up in his campaign, congressional office, and family. What has been surprising, though, is his complete inability to answer for it. In recent debates, Collins has fumbled through questions about these connections, and refused to concede Trump lost the 2020 election.

What do the polls say?

Collins’ opponent, incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff (D), is ahead. 


6. Sherrod Brown (D) / Jon Husted (R) — Ohio Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

There was a time when Ohio picked the president. That broke down in 2020 when Trump won the state by 8 points despite losing reelection. It has trended increasingly red in recent years, raising the question of whether a Democrat can still win statewide. If one can, the conventional wisdom goes, it is Sherrod Brown (D) in 2026. His opponent, Jon Husted (R), has struggled to distance himself from the many data centers he brought to Ohio during his time as lieutenant governor, and that the public now adamantly opposes. If Democrats can’t pick up this seat with an optimal candidate in an optimal cycle, it’s hard to see when they ever would. 

Elsewhere on the Ohio ballot, the contest for governor between former state health department director Amy Acton (D) and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy (R) is also competitive. Ramaswamy has struggled throughout his campaign to connect with voters and to hit baseballs. Some polls have Acton up by as many as nine points. The race is wrapping up on a particularly nasty note, with an attack ad featuring Acton’s mother — long estranged from the candidate after she stayed with the man who sexually abused Acton when she was a child — to paint Acton as a liar. The Ramaswamy campaign doubled down amid the ensuing outrage, calling Acton a “serial fabulist.”    

What do the polls say?

Acton is running a tick ahead of Ramaswamy, but both that race and the Senate one are extremely close, the Democrats having a slight edge.


7. Secretaries of State races, including in New Mexico, Arizona and Georgia

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, voting rights, election denial. 

What to know:

The secretary of state’s office may have gone without much attention before the Trump era, but no longer. The official who oversees elections in key states is in the cross-hairs of those who believe the myths that election was stolen in 2020, and that widespread fraud and non-citizen voting continues to help Democrats. In Arizona and New Mexico, two election denial activists are themselves on the ballot, running for the role. In Georgia, the Republican candidate has reportedly said there were “irregularities” in the 2020 election but has stopped short of claiming Trump won. That candidate, Tim Fleming (R), has also repeated false claims about mail-in ballots being used to commit voter fraud and has been evasive about whether he would be ready to do as his would-be predecessor, Brad Raffensperger (R), did and stand up to Trump. Fleming did tout that he has voted for the president six times during a debate in May. When you have a Republican administration that has shown it is hellbent on seizing the constitutional right to administer elections from states, it’s pretty crucial to have people who are not election deniers serving in those roles in the lead up to 2028. 

What do the polls say?

Too little polling to say anything conclusive.


8. Adam Hamilton (D) / Roger Marshall (R) — Kansas Senate

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Expanding Democrats’ map. 

What to know:

Though everyone is surprised that a Democrat may be on the cusp of winning a Senate election in Kansas, the party has experienced electoral success in the state before — and relatively recently. Current, term-limited Gov. Laura Kelly (D) won in 2018 and again in 2022, riding, the first time, the backlash to Trump and, the second time, the backlash to Dobbs. Now, Democrats could strike gold again with popular Methodist minister Adam Hamilton (D), who is up against the uniquely unlikeable and scandal-hobbled incumbent senator, Roger Marshall (R). This is the kind of race where Democrats will need everything to go right, but they at least have secured themselves a candidate compelling enough to put the state into play, and possibly to give Democrats a blueprint for other deep red state races. Elsewhere on the ballot, polling shows a competitive gubernatorial contest between state senators Ty Masterson (R) and Cindy Holscher (D).

What do the polls say?

Hamilton v. Marshall is as close as can be. Holscher is running a few points behind Masterson.


9. David Crowley (D) / Tom Tiffany (R) — Wisconsin Governor

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, voting rights, election denial.

What to know:

Tom Tiffany (R) is a weird character, and Wisconsin is important. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) announced last summer that he would not seek a third term in office, creating an open race for governor in Wisconsin for the first time since 2010. Tiffany, a member of Congress, has done nothing to engender confidence that he would support free and fair elections in the state. The main problem with the Trump-backed Tiffany is the extent to which he threw his weight behind overturning the results of the 2020 election. Tiffany didn’t just vote against certifying President Biden (D) as the winner of the election in Arizona and Pennsylvania (he vowed to do the same for Wisconsin but that vote was interrupted by the mob of Trump supporters that stormed the Capitol), he also joined a Ken Paxton (R)-led effort to throw out Wisconsin’s election results after Trump lost. His election denialism continues to this day, too — in June he embraced the FBI’s investigation into the 2020 election in Wisconsin. 

But Tiffany is no exception to the trend that’s emerged in recent weeks, as Republicans try to distance themselves from the deeply unpopular president who is not on the ballot but wants voters to pretend he is. In September, Tiffany’s campaign conceded “Joe Biden won” when asked about the 2020 results. Even then, his campaign still involuntarily offered to “cooperate with law enforcement on investigations” into Wisconsin elections.

What do the polls say?

Close, but Crowley seems slightly ahead. 


10. Phil Weiser (D) / Viktor Marx (R) — Colorado Governor

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Viktor Marx (R) is a unique character well-suited to our unique political moment. Over his years as a Christian nationalist leader, author, and self-described “high risk missionary,” the Republican Party nominee for governor in Colorado has boasted of having personally rescued thousands of people from conflict zones and of attaining multiple black belts in various martial arts. His impressive resume is not limited to the earthly realms, however: he has also, in his telling, battled demons and faced down Satan himself, biographical details TPM has covered with interest. Critics have questioned Marx’s claims. He’s likely to lose to the Democratic nominee, Phil Weiser, potentially dragging fellow Colorado Republicans down with him. 

What do the polls say?

Marx is almost certainly going to lose. 


11. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D) / Tom Smith (R) — Michigan’s 8th Congressional District

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism, election denial. 

What to know:

This is a weird one. The Republican candidate Tom Smith won his nomination by accident, likely due to racism. (Smith actually dropped out of the race in July and a different Republican, a Navy veteran and former law enforcement officer, had earned Trump’s endorsement in the primary. The Trump-backed candidate’s name was Amir Hassan, and, well, as one GOP strategist put it to Politico in August, the “GOP base was reluctant to support a dude named Amir Hassan.” Hence, Michigan voters elected the white-bread sounding Tom Smith, who was no longer running.) TPM later learned and was first to report that Smith attended protests in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021 and live-tweeted the whole experience from “Jar Head Salsa,” a Twitter account for the food company he runs with his son. 

What do the polls say?

There aren’t many polls of this race, but things are not looking good for Tom. For starters, Kristen McDonald Rivet (D) has wildly out-raised him. As of the beginning of this month, the Democrat had raised about $5 million in donations and contributions to her campaign. Tom’s raised about $250,000. 


12. Missouri ballot amendments 

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Voting rights, abortion. 

What to know:

You may recall one of the few bright spots to come out of the 2024 elections was the passage of an amendment that enshrined the “right to reproductive freedom” in the Missouri Constitution. The measure passed 52% to 48% and protected abortion in a state led by politicians who would outlaw it if given the chance. Now, the Missouri General Assembly is asking voters to repeal that same constitutional amendment that they voted into law just two years ago. Amendment 3 would ban abortion in Missouri with exceptions only for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly, rape and incest. The measure would also ban gender-affirming care for minors. Missouri Republicans are gambling that some mixture of low turnout and confusing ballot language will help them thwart the clearly articulated desire of their constituents.

That perversion of democracy will sit alongside its triumph, as Missouri voters will also get the chance to vote up or down a maximal Republican gerrymander, despite state officials’ best efforts. The legislature passed the map last year, gerrymandering Black and Democratic voters in the Kansas City area out of electoral power, then tried to shield the new map from the state’s referendum voting process. They failed, due mostly to the still-normal Missouri Supreme Court — which, as we predicted, those same politicians are now looking to dismantle and MAGA-fy. 

What do the polls say?

There’s limited polling of these measures.


13. Matt Dunlap (D) / Paul LePage (R) — Maine’s 2nd Congressional District

Why is this race especially important to TPM?

Extremism.

What to know:

Paul LePage (R) is an old school TPM character: He was Trump before Trump, he often jokes. A trailblazer on the hard right, he denounced immigrants as “the enemy” and labeled one political opponent a “socialist cocksucker” a full decade ago. He looms large in Maine, where he served as governor from 2011 to 2019. The district in which he is now running — Maine’s 2nd — covers a huge portion of the state, the largely unpopulated north. Republicans often win it, though for the last several years it’s been held by Jared Golden (D), a conservative Democrat who is retiring. Matt Dunlap (D), a much more mainstream Democrat, is running against LePage to replace Golden. It’s been conventional wisdom that Dunlap is too progressive for this district, though a big enough blue wave could net the seat anyway. Recent polls show Dunlap ahead. Cook Political Report rates it “lean Republican.”

What do the polls say?

Dunlap seems to have a slight lead. 

Josh Kovensky, Hunter Walker and Christopher Mathias contributed reporting.

  •  

Trump Is Almost Certainly Referring to This Dr Phil Project With His Claims of ‘Oil, Gas and Mineral Exploration’ in Greenland

A Texas Energy Company, Dr Phil & Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ Friends

President Trump made one key motivation of his imperialistic ambitions in Greenland clear in a Truth Social post early this morning, claiming that a “massive oil, gas and mineral exploration” was set to begin in “our new and beautiful Greenland!”

He is referencing the paltry-for-the-U.S. security deal that he was able to eke out of Greenland and Denmark last month, which Trump has hailed as some sort of victory for his longtime vision of the U.S. taking Greenland under its control. In reality, Denmark, the U.S. and Greenland signed an agreement in September that allows the U.S. to expand its military presence on the semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. It appears as though the deal has, for now, quieted Trump’s broader ambitions to take the island by force.

The deal does not give the U.S. any new mining or drilling rights and Greenland banned all future oil drilling back in 2021. Greenland officials have already combatted Trump’s statement, according to CNN:

While Greenland’s deputy mining minister Jørgen Hammeken-Holm acknowledged that “there are activities by US companies,” he told CNN that “we are very far away from ‘massive’ exploration.”

“There are many smaller explorations underway but these could take years to become operational,” he added, echoing researchers who have pointed out the difficulties and enormous expense involved in extracting resources from Greenland.

I haven’t really seen anyone mention this in their coverage so I wanted to elevate some reporting I did a few months back about a Trump-linked Dr. Phil drilling project that is in the works in Greenland — and almost certainly what Trump is referring to here (Reuters does mention the project in passing in its coverage of Trump’s remarks). The connection becomes more explicit in this line of Trump’s Truth Social post:

There are Experts that are saying that the amount of easily available Oil is far greater than that of almost any land, anywhere in the World and, even more importantly, from a Security Purpose in the Defense and Offense of both the United States of America, and Europe, is second to none.

Trump is likely referring to the project that a Texas-based firm, Greenland Energy, is trying to embark on in Greenland’s remote Nunap Qeqqa, or Jameson Land. Greenland Energy executives have claimed they have reason to believe that $1 trillion worth of crude oil may lie beneath the surface of Jameson Land. 

Reports surfaced in August suggesting the company was readying resources to begin drilling in the region, even though it did not yet have permission from local officials or the Greenland government to do so. The government is currently still reviewing whether Greenland Energy has the right to drill in the area due to its partnership with a UK company that secured the rights to drill in Jameson Land before the 2021 ban.

I wrote about the whole thing extensively here. But in essence, the Texas-based Greenland Energy project had Trump’s finger-prints all over it before he made things so explicit in this post. Executives for the company have mentioned “disruptions to key shipping corridors, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz” as a motivating factor for embarking on the project and Dr. Phil’s media company has partnered with Greenland Energy to make a docu-series about the drilling venture.

Add to the fact that Greenland Energy personnel have close and obvious ties to Trump and his hegemonic salivating over Greenland, per my piece back in August:

Greenland Energy announced in June that it had added Carol Craig to the company’s board of directors. Craig runs a space exploration and defense company that is heavily involved in Trump’s “Golden Dome” project, the missile defense plan that Trump has used as a basis for his ongoing argument that the “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for the U.S. (It’s worth noting that the chair of Greenland Energy’s board, Larry Swets, is reportedly known to have the president’s ear and has said publicly that the drilling project is “not related to American annexation,” per The Guardian.)

View Article


From: Dr. Phil and a Texas Oil Firm Go to Greenland With a Suspicious Agenda. Signs Point to Trump’s Imperialist Visions.

By Nicole LaFond | 08.10.26 | 5:07 pm

The signs were all there before Trump shouted about them on Truth Social just after midnight last night.

— Nicole LaFond

  •  

Somehow, Mike Collins Was Completely Unprepared for Questions About His Neo-Nazi Ties During Senate Debate 

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) failed to answer a question about who won the 2020 election, said tariffs were making trade fair for Georgia manufacturers, and attempted to elicit sympathy for his own family when asked to condemn the white nationalist views held by his son-in-law during the first Georgia-wide U.S. Senate debate on Thursday night.

  •  

New IRS Citizenship Question Could Make It Easier for Census Bureau to Shift Political Power

A proposed change to a key tax form could help the Trump administration achieve new anti-immigrant policy objectives, including preventing undocumented immigrants from receiving federal tax benefits. But it could also be used to accomplish a more sweeping objective: Shifting the balance of power in Congress by excluding many classes of immigrants from apportionment, the process through which power in the House of Representatives is allocated.

  •  

The Midterms Look Bad for Republicans. How Are GOP Candidates Coping?

[Essay]

Breaking Down the Different Flavors of GOP Midterms Cope

It’s never a good sign when the Senate Majority Leader suggests the election prospects for his own party look grim. Sen. John Thune (R-SD) admitted in a recent interview that he believes even losing Senate control in the midterms to be a real possibility for the GOP, saying, “I worry about that, for sure.” 

Donald Trump is largely responsible for this situation. He’s fully leaned into unpopular policies (building AI data centers, going to war in Iran, launching trade wars with allies, etc.) that have driven up prices, and, despite his dismal approval rating, is insisting there’s no daylight between himself and the rest of the party. As he said at his weird fake midterms convention in Dallas, “Pretend that I am on the ballot.” 

Even accounting for all the usual caveats about poll margins, it does seem like the Democrats are on track to have a strong midterms cycle. So Republican candidates are experimenting with different flavors of cope as they look towards Election Day. Nicole and John have tracked some of this in Where Things Stand and The Brief, respectively, so we tried to come up with some handy categorizations. Here’s what we’ve got.

All Aboard the Islamophobia and Red Scare Express

Some red state MAGA loyalists are playing the culture war hits, trying to keep the focus on nonexistent crises rather than any of the issues actually affecting their voters. We’re talking Sharia takeovers, communist creep, and stolen elections. As Josh Kovensky reported earlier this year, Texas Republicans Gov. Greg Abbott, who is running for reelection, and Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Senate nominee, pioneered the strategy of targeting the local Muslim community in their midterms messaging. Abbott spent the summer fighting “a proposed mosque-anchored housing development outside Dallas” and “campaigning against what he calls the imposition of Islamic law,” per The Guardian.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, the gubernatorial nominee in Alabama, has taken it upon himself to become a foremost critic of Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, calling him a “TERRORIST” and “RADICAL ISLAMIST” who would “do everything he can to destroy America.” 

Other Republicans are red-baiting their hearts out, with Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) claiming that Medicare for All is a “communist” policy and Rep. John McGuire (R-VA) labeling Democratic immigration policies “crazy communism.” 

Self-proclaimed “MAGA warrior” Mike Collins is going for an “all of the above” approach in his Georgia Senate race, promoting xenophobia; pushing 2020 Big Lie conspiracies; and advocating to compensate some people prosecuted for Jan. 6. (Meanwhile, he’s doing little to distance himself from the many racist extremists in his orbit — including in his family.)

Flirting With Criticism

Republicans in swing states and seats are trying to toe the line, breaking with Trump on specific issues, particularly ones germane to their states or districts. They’re leveling targeted criticism and trying to display independence.

So you’ve got midwestern Senate nominees Mike Rogers in Michigan and Rep. Ashley Hinson in Iowa calling for an end to the Iran War, saying soaring gas and grocery prices are harming their voters. Both previously supported the war. Last week, Iowa Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks even voted to support removing U.S. forces from Iran.

Rogers has also bucked Trump’s AI boosterism, calling for a “national security framework” on the technology and for a one-year moratorium on new construction in Michigan. Sen. Jon Husted (R-OH) has gone further in his reelection campaign, sponsoring legislation to make data centers pay their own utility bills.

In Florida, Rep. María Elvira Salazar used her first TV ad of the general election to warn that Trump will lose Latino voters thanks to his overly aggressive immigration enforcement and mass deportation policies. Salazar, who serves as assistant whip, claims that she risks losing her seat in a district Trump won by 15 points. 

Trump Will Always Be Daddy

While most vulnerable Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Trump, a brave few are hugging him tight. Take Eric Flores, who is running in a South Texas district currently represented by a Democrat, and where Latino voters will determine the result. Praising Trump’s immigration policies, Flores told Fox, “When people say that folks are running away from President Trump, I’ll tell you, I’m certainly not doing that. And let me tell you why: Because he has made promises to South Texas, and he has kept them, especially when we look at border security.” 

We Don’t Know Him

Probably the funniest genre of response comes from Republicans pretending that Trump straight-up doesn’t exist. As John noted in the Brief this week, several Republicans have stripped mentions of Trump from their campaign websites, including Florida congressional candidate Mike Beltran, Iowa congressional candidate Joe Mitchell, and, most recently and notably, Florida gubernatorial nominee Byron Daniels. 

Team ‘We’ll Defy Expectations!’ 

Despite all indications that Democrats seem likely to take back the House, Speaker Mike Johnson insists Republicans are going to defy history and “grow the majority.” 

“It’s a contrast election, and people are making a contrast between common-sense solutions and candidates, and really crazy, which is represented by the other side,” Johnson told Fox News Digital in September. “I am very bullish about the outcome on election night.”

Rep. Ryan McKenzie (R-PA), who spoke at the GOP convention, also predicted Republicans are “actually going to defy the historic trends. Why is that? Because the Democrats are so far left they are totally out of touch.”

Link Copied

By Allegra Kirkland

[Report]

GOPers Blame Americans’ Data Center Opposition on China

Watching the Super Bowl last winter, I saw a commercial from my local electricity company that seemed a little… political.

Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) was trying to convey something to me that seemed tangentially related to bipartisan data center opposition that has been rising nationwide and is especially poignant in the D.C., Maryland, Virginia corridor also known as “Data Center Alley.” 

“Private power plant companies that control our power supply are failing to meet demand,” the ad said, with PRIVATE POWER PLANT and CONTROL OUR SUPPLY in capital, neon letters. “When there’s a shortage, prices go up.”

The ad was indirect but — and without speaking to the merit of its intentions — the vibe was pretty obviously trying to leverage public outrage about skyrocketing electricity bills related to energy demands from AI data centers. I was struck by the idea that my electric company would wade in any way into such a charged political issue — a self-interested energy corporation joining hands with riled-up townspeople and climate activists against a common enemy.

If you ask Reps. Jason Smith (R-MO) and John Moolenaar (R-MI), that enemy is the Chinese Communist Party.

Smith, chair of the House Ways and Means committee, and Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on China, sent a letter Tuesday to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano blaming American data center opposition on an orchestrated disinformation campaign supported by the Chinese government. Yes, you did read that right.

“This is not an organic grassroots movement,” Smith said of data center opposition. Instead, Chinese-backed nonprofits are being used to “manipulate public discourse surrounding the technological infrastructure necessary to win the AI race.”

Smith and Moolenaar’s proof? An OpenAI report which found Chinese-linked influence over social media content “claiming that data center construction was raising electricity prices.” (It is.) And a report that X, owned by AI mogul Elon Musk, identified 200 bots posting anti-AI stuff on the site. OpenAI found no evidence that the campaign it uncovered influenced public opinion.

Instead, data shows that 58% of registered voters believe data center construction by big companies will do more harm than good, according to a September NPR/PBS News/Marist poll released Wednesday. 

Data centers are even more unattractive when they’re local, with 60% of Americans, including 54% of Republicans, responding that they would not be comfortable with a data center in their communities, according to a Pew Research survey published Tuesday. And Pew’s survey also found negative sentiment about data centers increased by 16 points among Republicans between January and August.

This feels like an issue uniting Americans across party lines in grassroots opposition, driven not only by NIMBYism, or even by the documented harms to climate posed by energy-sucking super computers, but also by the desire of the everyman to stand up against entities they believe pose a direct risk to their immediate communities and their pockets.

In attempting to blame anti-AI sentiment on a foreign adversary, Smith and Moolenaar have opted to follow their leader, President Donald Trump, off the “AI opposition is a hoax” cliff. 

Trump has said opposing data center construction will make communities “backwards and poor”; tried to prohibit states from regulating AI; included expanded tax benefits for data center construction in his “Big, Beautiful Bill”; and called disconcerting warnings from AI company CEOs about the risks AI pose to humanity a “hoax.” This week, he’s trying to rebrand the tech from artificial intelligence to superintelligence, a move which may conjure unintended connotations.

The president’s contrary positions on AI and data center construction have pushed Republican politicians, especially those facing competitive midterms, to split from Trump.

While Smith and Moolenaar are both up for reelection, they’re in uncompetitive districts ranked by Cook Political Report as solidly Republican. But Ohio Republican Jon Husted is facing backlash to his once-strong support for data centers as he’s locked in a dead heat with former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Other Senate Republicans are pushing to support Husted’s bill focused on shielding people’s electricity bills from data center energy usage hikes. In Texas, Democrats are hoping their early opposition to data centers can help them win statewide office for the first time in more than two decades. And at least 27 states have passed legislation that datacentertracker.com categorizes as “favorable for communities.”

For what it’s worth, Twitter’s former head of corporate communications told Axios all evidence points to data center gripes being authentic, not the product of a “Chinese psyop.”

“If you can get both Greg Abbott and Kathy Hochul agreeing on something,” communications consultant Jim Prosser told Axios, “it’s probably not a Chinese psyop. It’s probably not a mass delusion people are having on these issues.”

Link Copied

By Layla A. Jones

[Good Posts]

5 Year Plans

no dad, owning a successful lesbian covid conscious bar in western mass was YOUR dream. I’M going to clown school

— leah (@kmewisfc) September 23, 2026
Link Copied

By

[TPM Trivia]

How Much of This Week’s News Do You Remember?

  1. Who was the anonymous White House source cited in the Politico story Trump is using to justify denying the publication access because the reporting “threatened national security and/or spread falsehoods”?
  2. After effectively shutting down the Kennedy Center when he wasn’t allowed to put his name on it, which culturally significant national landmark is Trump apparently trying to slap his name on next? 
  3. Which musician was scheduled to headline a MAGA music festival that ended up getting canceled because it failed to sell more than a handful of VIP tickets?

Answers below

Link Copied

By

[Galaxy Brain]

Anti-Vax or Pro Rock?

Campaigning for state auditor in Minnesota, failed gubernatorial candidate and real-life doctor Scott Jensen wants to know why western medicine keeps ignoring the science — from hundreds of years ago. Jensen’s medical license has been challenged for spreading COVID-19 misinformation and he has admitted to “quietly” being a member of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS/AFD), known for its anti-vaccine activism and for its founder, Simone Gold, being involved in Jan. 6. As Jensen told an interviewer, “The notion of electromagnetic powers, of minerals, and rocks, and things like that, that could have curative capabilities, we’ve ignored.” 

Given the widespread use of magnetic resonance imaging machines and the countless rock and mineral-derived chemicals used in modern medicine, we’re uncertain who the “we” is here. But sure, Dr. Jensen, go on. “We” would recommend a bong hit first, but know that your views on legalized weed have changed, despite co-authoring a bill supporting legalization in 2019. Not sure what you have against plants, but good luck with your rocks.

Link Copied

By

[Words of Wisdom]

Knowing Where You Live is the Robot’s Job Now

“There are a lot of skills that don’t matter. My first confession, I actually don’t know my address.” — Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, the world’s most valuable company

Link Copied

By

[No Words]

Maybe This Should Have Been the Strategy All Along

WASHINGTON, DC – SEPTEMBER 19: The White House Briefing room, on September 19, 2026 in Washington, DC. Reporters from MS NOW, CNN and Politico were barred from the White House a day after President Trump said he was banning the three outlets from the property. (Photo by Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
Link Copied

By

Trivia answers: 1) JD Vance 2) The Ford Theatre 3) Kid Rock, of course

Link Copied

By

  •  

HHS Appears to Be Prepping for Big Changes to Childhood Vaccine Recommendations

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has escorted his dangerous vaccine skepticism into the homes of every American through his role as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Now, public health experts and attorneys are worried that Kennedy might do away with effective federal vaccine recommendations altogether.

Right now, vaccines are recommended either on a universal basis, using a risk-based assessment for people with specific risk factors, or using what Kennedy’s HHS calls shared clinical decision-making, a controversial vaccine skeptical-adjacent category that the department has defined as an individualized process between a patient and physician. The comment period for an HHS request for information concluded on Sunday and sought comment on whether existing types of federal vaccine recommendations should remain in place. 

The request, posted to the Federal Register, also sought to consider “individual autonomy and religious freedom…and the communication practices necessary to earn and maintain public trust,” related to the federal childhood vaccine schedule.

But while shrouded in language implying greater freedom, pediatric health advocacy groups, health attorneys, and public health researchers said in public comments that further changes to vaccine recommendations will only jeopardize public health and child safety. 

And HHS’s apparent plan to change childhood vaccines is groundless.

““[T]here simply is no basis for the RFI’s implicit suggestion that the current recommendation framework produces unsafe results and needs fundamental revision,” wrote a group of health advocacy groups and scholars, including the American Public Health Association, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Bruce G. Gellin, former deputy assistant secretary of Health and director of the HHS National Vaccine Program Office. 

The HHS request poses its own potential vaccine categories, including vaccines that are recommended but not for babies, or recommended, but with other undefined caveats.

It comes as part of President Donald Trump’s August 2026 executive order, which required HHS to revive a defunct childhood vaccine task force and to reevaluate childhood vaccines.

“The arbitrary categories identified in the RFI without context, without accompanying evidence and without a clear communication strategy with medical professionals, the public health system, and the American public will inevitably produce widespread confusion and uncertainty,” the group of public health advocacy organizations and experts wrote in the public comment. “In the setting of such confusion, the principle of informed decision-making is at risk with the likely result that vaccine doses will be missed and diseases that are vaccine preventable will recur.”

Currently, America is experiencing its worst year for measles, the once all-but-eradicated viral disease, since 1991, according to the Associated Press. There have been 792 cases of the disease in Pennsylvania this year alone, and four people in the state have died of the illness since January. RFK battled Governor Josh Shapiro, claiming without evidence that state officials errantly attributed the deaths to measles. Kennedy had two of the Pennsylvania deaths removed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention measles dashboard which, as of Sept. 18, did not have any measles deaths listed.

Echoing Trump’s executive order, the HHS information request emphasizes that evidence, alongside freedom and trust, are paramount when considering vaccine recommendations. A public comment submitted by members of Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, however, notes that patients overwhelmingly trust their personal healthcare providers. A July survey by KFF found 86% of respondents trust their own doctor compared to 51% who trust the CDC and 34% who trust RFK. Even MAGA Republicans are more likely to trust their healthcare provider than RFK, at 86% compared to 74%.

“Any change to the current categories could cause provider and public confusion, leading to greater mistrust and wider spread of misinformation,” Hannah Green, state health policy analyst, and Kelly Whitener, an associate professor, wrote in the Georgetown public comment.

  •  

Missouri Dismisses Hail-Mary Lawsuit to Gain More Political Power, Confident Trump Admin Will Do What it Wants

The state of Missouri early this year sued the Department of Commerce to force something that would have once been considered radical: That the federal government exclude certain immigrants from the population count when apportioning political power and distributing federal funds. 

Less than a year after the lawsuit was filed, however, the Census Bureau has proposed to do just that. 

On Tuesday, a judge granted Missouri’s request to dismiss the case.

A senior judge for the Eastern District of Missouri ordered the case dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can renew their suit against the government, on Tuesday afternoon.

Missouri’s notice of dismissal came only after the Census Bureau published its controversial new rule which takes the first steps to exclude millions of immigrants from the census count by changing how the Bureau defines a person’s usual residence and by pitching a future immigration status question. But the rule is far from finalized. It must first undergo a 30-day public comment period which is sure to yield strong opposition to the rule, feedback which federal agencies have previously considered prior to finalizing a new policy. 

Nevertheless, it appears the unfinished Census Bureau rule has satisfied Missouri’s dubious legal argument that undocumented and other classifications of immigrants should not count toward a state’s population to be used for congressional apportionment or for the distribution of federal funds. The rule cites and incorporates legal arguments from Missouri’s suit.

In a statement provided to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office said it dismissed the case in light of the Census Bureau proposed rule.

“The proposed rule agrees with our understanding of the law and even cites our complaint,” Hanaway’s office told the publication in a statement. “Going forward, we will focus on assisting the Trump Administration defend what we anticipate will soon be a final rule. We will continue fighting to ensure citizens’ voices are never diluted in favor of illegal immigrant trespassers.”

In July and September, the Department of Commerce filed a motion to stay court proceedings in the case, suggesting its then-impending rule would address the plaintiff’s issues.

The Census Bureau’s latest moves represent an evolution of President Donald Trump’s unsuccessful first-term attempt to include a citizenship question on the census. Back then, the court found the administration lied about its reasons for wanting to include a citizenship question. The Trump administration maintained at that time that the question would be used to better enforce aspects of the Voting Rights Act.

This time, the mask is off. The Census Bureau in its new residence rule wrote that it found “merit in” legal argument that all immigrants except lawful permanent residents “should not be included in the apportionment count.” 

The rule would also dispense with recording race, ethnicity, and certain gender attributes. Race has been included on every census since 1790. 

Missouri filed its case in January to force the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to exclude undocumented immigrants and people with temporary visas from the census population count taken every 10 years. Including certain immigrants in that count, the suit argued, gave blue states with higher immigrant populations more seats in Congress and more Electoral College votes, and took away one congressional seat and an Electoral College vote Missouri would’ve otherwise received in 2020. The same harm, the suit alleged, would be perpetuated in 2030 unless the Census Bureau dramatically altered the way it counts U.S. residents by excluding a large swath of immigrants for the first time in history.

Missouri’s suit blames a 1980 policy by President Jimmy Carter which merely affirmed the historic practice of counting all residents of the country regardless of immigration status. The 1980 census sought to mitigate an undercount of these groups through intentional outreach, but not through the adjustment of any legal standard regarding the counting of all persons, as required by the 14th Amendment.

In moving to dismiss its suit even prior to the finalization of the Census Bureau’s embattled rule, attorneys for Missouri appear to expect that the rule will move forward in time for the 2030 Census.

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to TPM requests for comment. The Commerce Department, Census Bureau, and White House also did not immediately respond to TPM requests for comment.

  •  
❌