MSN UK

Although MS NOW host Joe Scarborough is a blistering critic of President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and rooted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024, the Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman remains a staunch defender of pre-MAGA Reagan and Goldwater conservatism. The Republican Party, as Scarborough sees it, took a wrong turn when it went MAGA.

During a Friday, December 12 rant on MS NOW's "Morning Joe" — which he hosts with liberal Mika Brzezinski — Scarborough argued that Trump is dropping the ball badly on the economy and that Republicans are destined to suffer in the 2026 midterms if they echo Trump's claim that "affordability" is a Democratic "hoax."

Scarborough said of Republicans, "They are setting themselves up every single day for political disaster next year….. It is astounding to me."

The "Morning Joe" host stressed that while Wall Street millionaires and billionaires are doing well in the stock market, many everyday Americans are struggling because of high prices.

Scarborough told Brzezinski, "Bill Clinton was able to say to Americans, 'I feel your pain.' They believed him. He was extraordinarily successful as a politician for decades because of that…. Now, (Trump's) problem is we have a divided economy. You have the top 10 percent of Americans that account for over 50 percent of our GDP this past year."

The Never Trump conservative continued, "So, if the GDP is doing well and the stock market is doing well…. Working Americans, middle Americans, middle-class Americans who are struggling to get by —they're not feeling that part of the GDP. And so, Donald Trump can't feel their pain and has never claimed to feel their pain."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Although Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election wasn't the "landslide" he claims it was — he won the national popular vote by roughly 1.5 percent — it showed how resilient he is as a politician. Trump was facing four criminal indictments at the time, yet he not only won the popular vote for the first time — he also made gains among Latinos, Generation Z, tech bros, swing voters and independents.

Now ten and one-half months into his second presidency, Trump is being dogged by low approval ratings. And the economy — especially inflation — is a key factor, according to polls.

During an appearance on The New Republic's "The Daily Blast" podcast, The Bulwark's Will Saletan argued that the more Trump trashes the gains he made in 2024, the more unhinged he becomes.

Saletan told host Greg Sargent, "There's now a lot of numbers to back up the thesis that the shift of ethnic minorities, of Blacks and Latinos in particular, to Donald Trump in 2024 has reversed. In the exit polls, which we have in New Jersey and Virginia from last month, you can just see massive shifts…. Compared to 2024 in Virginia, Blacks and Latinos shifted 13 and 15 points. So 15 points, a little bit under for the two groups, towards the Democrats away from Trump. So that's in the 2025 gubernatorial election in Virginia versus the 2024 presidential in that same state."

Saletan continued, "In New Jersey, it was twice that. It was a 24-point shift among Latinos, 28-point shift among Blacks — again, away from Trump in the New Jersey governor’s race."

Saletan noted that "Republican candidates down the ballot are paying the price" for Trump's flawed messaging on the economy. And the more Trump talks about the economy, the Bulwark journalist stressed, the worst things become for his party.

Saletan told Sargent, "I watch everything this guy says. I know that's insane and masochistic. I watch everything he says; I have notes on it. I can't count the number of times that he has said.... since he's been back in power, that prices are coming down, that he's bringing prices down. Specifically, things like groceries. I mean, you don't have to look farther than the Consumer Price Index and the all-government reports on grocery prices to know that that's just BS, right? But he lies about the numbers. And then, the problem is Americans, of course, who actually go to grocery stores and buy things, are like, 'Actually, that doesn't seem to be true.' So they think things are getting worse."

Listen to the full podcast at this link or read the transcript here.

Ten and one-half months into his second presidency, Donald Trump continues to be dogged by the very thing that imperiled former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 election: inflation.

The United States, as liberal economist Paul Krugman has often noted, enjoyed record-low unemployment during Biden's presidency. But Trump hammered Biden and Harris relentlessly on inflation during the presidential race, and that messaging helped him pull off a narrow victory of roughly 1.5 percent in the popular vote. Now, Trump is the one facing voters who are frustrated over the economy.

In an article published by MS NOW on December 12, journalist Jack Fitzpatrick (formerly of Bloomberg News) stresses that Republicans need a unified message on "affordability" but are flailing badly.

"Republicans insist they have a plan to deal with affordability issues," Fitzpatrick explains. "The problem is, if you ask 15 Republicans in Congress what that plan looks like — as MS NOW did this week — you're likely to get 15 different answers. For most Republicans, the responses were divided into two camps: a new health care bill or the reconciliation package Republicans passed over the summer. Conservatives have pushed for a partisan follow-up to the reconciliation bill, pointing to proposals on health care and housing. But other Republicans are urging leaders to more vigorously sell voters on the tax cuts already enacted in July."

Fitzpatrick adds, "When pressed for a specific plan on affordability, however, no GOP lawmaker was able to point to a fully formed proposal — at least, not a single proposal."

Fitzpatrick reports that Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin) and Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina) are insisting that Republicans have a plan on high prices but aren't offering specifics. But MAGA Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) told MS NOW that GOP lawmakers "have to have more conversations and actually get something to the floor."

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas) told MS NOW, "Messaging is something that the House of Representatives — the Republicans in the House — need to do a better job on."

Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) believes that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) needs to be a lot more proactive when it comes to pursuing a health care bill.

Kennedy told MS NOW, "I just think (Thune is) making a mistake — a big, big mistake. And we will look back and go, 'What planet were we living on?' Especially if the midterms don't go well for us."

Read Jack Fitzpatrick's full article for MS NOW at this link.

President Donald Trump continues to berate U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whose term ends on May 15, 2026, for not lowering interest rates at a rapid pace. Powell is cutting interest rates slowly and gradually, but Trump wants major rate cuts in a hurry and is searching for a Fed chair replacement who will do exactly what he wants.

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark, former Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell — now a weekend host on MS NOW — lays out some reasons why Trump's efforts to destroy the Fed's independence may be his "most damaging" economic policy of all.

"There are many items on President Trump’s agenda that are hurting the U.S. economy: the pointless trade wars, the socialization of the private sector, the mass deportations, and much more," Rampell warns. "But in the long run, the most damaging policy of all might be one that's gotten scant attention, at least from non-finance-nerds: Trump's quest to crush the Federal Reserve. If Trump succeeds, he may doom the United States to high inflation for years, if not decades, to come. Bullying the Fed has long been one of Trump's favorite pastimes."

Rampell continues, "Bullying the Fed has long been one of Trump's favorite pastimes. Way back in 2019, he called Jerome Powell, the Fed chair whom he had appointed the year before, an 'enemy.' He's continued the broadsides during his second term, repeatedly musing about firing Powell — including earlier this year."

The MS NOW host emphasizes that if Trump compromises the Fed's independence, he "could seize direct control of the money supply and turn America into Venezuela."

Under two leftist presidents — first the late Hugo Chavez, now Nicolás Maduro — Venezuela has suffered severe economic problems, a debased currency, major shortages of goods, and empty shelves in stores. And Rampell fears that the U.S. could suffer similar problems if Trump is able to fill the U.S. Federal Reserve with obedient loyalists who answer only to him.

"Countries with more independent central banks tend to have much better — i.e., lower — inflation outcomes," Rampell explains. "Likewise, there are plenty of examples of countries where politicians seized control of the money supply and decided to keep that delicious punch flowing. Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey, and pre-Euro Italy come to mind. But you don't need to venture very far geographically for a cautionary tale."

Rampell continues, "This same thing happened right here in the United States, when, in turn, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon each leaned on the Fed to keep interest rates low. You may recall the painful stagflation that resulted in the 1970s. But if you're too young, ask your parents about it. Powell certainly remembers it."

Catherine Rampell's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

Ten and one-half months after returning to the White House, Donald Trump hasn't had nearly as many conflicts with administration officials and appointees as he did during his first presidency. Trump, this time, has made a point of picking MAGA loyalists who are unlikely to question him — unlike all the traditional conservatives he fired or forced out when he was in the White House before, from a secretary of state (Rex Tillerson) to two U.S. attorneys general (Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr) to a national security adviser (John Bolton) to a White House chief of staff (John F. Kelly).

But according to Salon's Heather Digby Parton, Trump may have some firings in mind for 2026.

"Staffing of the White House during the president's first term was famously a constant state of chaos; the list of resignations and dismissals was a mile long," Parton explains in an article published on December 11. "But as before, Trump rarely faced the people he was firing. FBI Director James Comey — whom Trump is currently attempting to put in prison — learned of his termination in May 2017 while watching cable news on a business trip to California. Trump never spoke to Comey personally, but he did order that the former director couldn't travel back to Washington, D.C. on the FBI plane, forcing Comey to take a commercial flight."

Parton continues, "Rex Tillerson, Trump's first secretary of state, was informed that he was fired while in the bathroom. In 2017, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly was given the duty of firing Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci, adviser Steve Bannon and dozens of others, before being pushed out himself in December 2018. The president's second term has been different."

For his second presidency, Parton notes, Trump has chosen an "insufferable crowd of MAGA influencers, Fox News toadies and hardcore loyalists that have proved themselves to him over the course of the previous decade in the trenches." And many of them have been "egregiously unqualified."

"So far, this new approach has resulted in very little turnover," Parton observes. "There have been a couple of instances where someone hasn't worked out. But instead of firing them, he has taken to promoting people to different jobs…. But as we approach the first anniversary of Trump's second inauguration, rumblings of impending personnel changes are growing louder."

The Salon reporter continues, "Most are centered on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has produced the most scandals of any Trump appointee…. Last week, The Bulwark broke the story, since confirmed by other outlets, that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is also on the chopping block…. Finally, there's FBI Director Kash Patel, who seems to spend most of his time jetting around on the FBI plane with his country-singer girlfriend."

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

A top FBI official struggled to explain his claim that Antifa is the “most immediate violent threat” America is facing, as he was challenged to provide details.

Former Trump FBI Director Christopher Wray stated in 2020 congressional testimony that Antifa is “not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.” The BBC has explained that Antifa is “a loosely organized, leftist movement that opposes far-right, racist and fascist groups.”

“Antifa is short for anti-fascist,” BBC added. “It is a loose, leaderless affiliation of mostly far-left activists.”

House Homeland Security Committee Ranking Member Bennie Thompson on Thursday asked Michael Glasheen, FBI National Security Operations Director, to describe “organizations that pose, on the domestic side,” the number one and number two threats to the homeland.

Glasheen asked for clarification.

“Any domestic terrorist organizations that poses a threat to the homeland as we speak,” Thompson replied.

Pointing to President Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, Glasheen said, “That’s our primary concern right now.”

He described Antifa as “the most immediate violent threat that we’re facing on the domestic side.”

“So, where is the Antifa headquartered?” Thompson pressed.

After a pause, Glasheen said: “What we’re doing right now —” before Thompson cut him off.

“Where, in the United States, does Antifa exist?” he asked. “If it’s a terrorist organization — and you’ve identified it as number one.”

“We are building out the infrastructure right now,” Glasheen responded.'

“So what does that mean?” Thompson pressed. “Where do they exist? How many members do they have in the United States as of right now?”

“Well, that’s very fluid,” Glasheen said, describing it as “ongoing,” before comparing the situation to Al Qaeda and ISIS.

“I asked one question, sir,” Thompson replied. “I just want you to tell us. If you said Antifa is the number one domestic terrorist organization, operating in the United States, I just need to know where they are, how many people. I don’t want a name. I don’t want anything like that. Just, how many people have you identified with the FBI, that Antifa is made of?”

“Well, the investigations are active,” Glasheen replied.

“Sir, you wouldn’t come to this committee and say something you can’t prove. I know. I knew you wouldn’t do that. But you did.”

Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez (Ill.) lambasted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Thursday hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee, alleging she "lied" under oath to Congress.

During the hearing, Ramirez countered claims by both Noem and the Trump administration that Americans aren't being detained or deported by the Department of Homeland Security.

"Secretary Noem, you lie, and you lied to the American people. I will be including into the record an article by ProPublica from October 16th, 2025, entitled 'We found that more than 170 U.S. citizens have been held by immigration agents,'" Ramirez said.

Noem began smiling, and Ramirez interrupted her remarks, saying, "There's nothing [to smile] about US citizens" being detained. Noem started to speak, but Ramirez put up her hand, "I'm sorry. That's very inappropriate. Let me continue."

Ramirez played a video of Noem, during a press conference, claiming that the administration had "targeted the worst of the worst," including "violent criminals" who are "breaking our laws."

Ramirez then included in the record an NBC report saying 75,000 non-criminals have been arrested by Homeland Security.

"And it is your obligation as a member of the executive branch to honor decisions made by the highest court of the land. Yes or no, Secretary?" asked Ramirez.

Noem insisted they abide by all court orders.

Tensions between the Trump Administration and Venezuela escalated when, on Wednesday, December 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that an oil tanker had been seized off of the Venezuelan coast in the Caribbean. Three officials, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told the New York Times that the tanker was carrying Venezuelan oil.

The incident followed a series of U.S. military attacks on Venezuelan boats that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allege were smuggling illegal drugs headed for the United States. Many critics of Trump's Venezuela policy are describing the attacks as "extrajudicial killings," alleging that the Trump Administration isn't following the rules of war.

Politico legal analyst Ankush Khardori, a former federal prosecutor for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), addresses the legality of the boat strikes in an article published on December 11.

"Perhaps not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior military leaders have faced the worst of the political uproar from the Trump Administration's boat strikes off the coasts of Central and South America," Khardori explains. "The campaign has produced at least 87 deaths and one of the few episodes of bipartisan pushback in Trump's second term following the revelation that the U.S. military conducted a 'double tap' strike on an alleged drug boat that intentionally killed two survivors of an earlier strike. But very serious questions about the legality of the effort in its entirety — even setting aside the double tap strike — should be directed at the Trump Administration's top lawyers."

Khardori continues, "In particular, there is a dubious, but still classified, memo that was reportedly produced over the summer by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that signs off on the campaign and asserts that everyone in the chain of command is entitled to criminal immunity because the United States is said to be engaged in an armed conflict with drug cartels."

If any activity associated with the Venezuelan boat strikes are found to be illegal, Khardori warns, Trump officials won't enjoy the presidential immunity protections that Trump himself enjoys.

In its Trump v. the United States decision of 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that presidents enjoye absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts but not "unofficial" acts committed while in office. The Nation's Elie Mystal, a scathing critic of the ruling, argued that it was dangerous because it give presidents "absolute" immunity rather than merely "qualified immunity."

Khardori notes that Trump v. the United States only offers immunity protections to Trump, not to others involved in the Venezuela operation.

"Trump may be immune from criminal prosecution in the U.S. thanks to the Supreme Court, but everyone else involved, in theory at least, faces the risk of federal prosecution in a future administration unless Trump at some point grants some or all of them a pardon," according to the former federal prosecutor. "For all of the Trump Administration's bravado, getting legal signoff for the boat strikes may not have been as simple as it now appears. Multiple media outlets have reported that proponents of the strikes were forced to push aside or ignore government lawyers who concluded that the military campaign is unlawful or otherwise questioned its legality."

Ankush Khardori's full article for Politico is available at this link.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) hammered Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on who approved the asylum of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who shot and killed a National Guard soldier in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 26, 2025.

Lakanwal, a CIA-backed fighter in Afghanistan, entered the United States in 2021 and applied for asylum. He was approved in April 2025 under President Donald Trump's administration, CNN reported.

Thompson repeatedly probed who approved the application. Noem tried to find a way to blame former President Joe Biden's administration. She claimed that the vetting for Lakanwal happened due to the "Biden administration's vetting."

Thompson wasn't having it.

"Who, who approved the asylum?" Thompson said as Noem tried to speak over him.

"The application on the asylum was thoroughly filled out by information that was gathered by the Biden administration," Noem repeated.

"So, the Biden administration approved the asylum?" Thompson asked again. Noem filibustered over him, again stating the application was "put into place under the rules established by the Biden administration."

"Reclaiming my time. I don't want to charge — file perjury charges against you, but I'm of the opinion that the Trump administration, DHS, your DHS, approved the asylum application," said Thompson.

Noem claimed that the application "moved forward under all of the information and vetting processes that were put in place under the Biden administration." Meaning, the application was filed under Biden. Noem refused to acknowledge the application's approval.

"Reclaiming my time again," Thompson said as Noem refused to admit Trump administration culpability. "It's obvious you're not going to answer my question."

"Mr. Kent you want to take a shot at it?" He asked the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Joseph Kent.

Kent also repeated that Lakanwal was vetted under Biden, and because he was tagged as a soldier, he was allowed into the U.S.

However, it was the Trump administration that ultimately approved the application. They have since changed the way they do vetting. The most recent update will require enhanced vetting for H-1B and dependent H-4 visa applicants as of Dec. 15, 2025.

Thompson also pressed DHS officials on the claim that antifa is a terrorist organization. He asked how many people they've identified or where they were that they consider terrorists. None of the officials answered.

Republicans are growing annoyed with President Donald Trump's pardons and commutations.

The Washington Post reported Monday that Trump has granted clemency to about 100 people accused of drug-related crimes in his first year in office.

“I wouldn’t have pardoned those people,” Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) said of Reps. George Santos (R-NY), Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) and Honduran President Orlando Hernández, NOTUS reported. “But I’m not president.”

The Cuellar pardon in particular reportedly triggered “buyer’s remorse” from Trump, who ranted on Truth Social that the Democrat showed “no loyalty” because he refused to switch parties.

Comer's comments come as the House Oversight Committee chair attacks former President Joe Biden’s pardons and commutations, arguing that any signed with an “automatic signature” are invalid and launching an investigation into the practice. NOTUS noted that his criticism of specific Trump cases suggests broader Republican unease with the current wave of pardons.

Comer claimed he has "always been an advocate for pardon reform."

Senate Judiciary Republican Thom Tillis (R-NC) said the pardons prompted “more fundamental questions about the people making the recommendations” to Trump, NOTUS said.

“I wouldn’t expect the president to go through the details of a pardon application,” he said. “But I do expect those who make the recommendations to, and I’ve got some concerns with some of them.”

Leading the effort is Ed Martin, the first political appointee to serve as pardon attorney at the Justice Department, who previously failed to win enough GOP support in the Senate to be confirmed as U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. Still, lawmakers acknowledge they have little power to intervene because Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad authority over pardons and commutations.

“There’s nothing I can do about it,” confessed Judiciary Committee member Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) when speaking to NOTUS. “The people are already pardoned. I’m trying to spend my time on things I can do something about.”

“I find it kind of difficult to really weigh in on one pardon or another,” said House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), “because you can probably in any individual case, you could say, ‘Well, of course, that person doesn’t deserve to get out of prison early.’ But that’s gonna be every pardon, pretty much.”

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) likewise called the commutation of Santos “wrong decision” in an October discussion with CNN.

“At least he’s doing it up front and during the presidency,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told NOTUS of Trump’s pardons, “as opposed to waiting and granting 1000s of pardons at the very end of his presidency.”

Read the full report here.

MAGA Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) is facing a major controversy because of her behavior at the Charleston International Airport on October 30, when — according to an internal investigation by airport police — she berated airport and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers, using demeaning insults and engaging in a profanity-filled rant.

The controversy escalated when Mace, on December 9, told CNN that "part of the report" was "actually falsified."

Mace discussed the incident some more during a Thursday, December 11 appearance on Fox Business. The MAGA congresswoman had a lot to say about security protections for Republican officials, but host Maria Bartiromo pushed for more details on what happened at the Charleston International Airport on October 30.

Mace doubled down on her claim that airport officials "did file a fictitious police incident report," adding, "Here's the thing, Maria: We have to take our security very seriously. If you're conservative, if you're well-known, if you have fought the transgender community like I have exponentially — in the wake of Charlie Kirk's public assassination — the death threats, the amount of political violence, the celebration of the killing of conservatives, is deeply disturbing."

The GOP lawmaker added that "when there is a security breach, one mistake can have devastating consequences."

But Bartiromo pressed Mace for more specifics, saying, "What I'm asking you is: What happened? You're suing the airport and American Airlines?"

Mace, in response, once again alleged that there was a "security breach" at the airport and claimed that the police report's account of her actions at the airport was "falsified."

Democratic lawmakers announced on Thursday that they want an investigation to uncover whether the Department of Justice has "tampered with" any of the investigatory files around the trafficking case of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

CBS's Scott MacFarlane reported that he spoke with Epstein survivors who fear the records had been "scrubbed, softened, or quietly removed before the public sees it."

The questions come after a whistleblower revealed to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats that nearly 1,000 FBI personnel were tasked with sifting through the files.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) released a statement claiming the DOJ and FBI were tasked with searching through the Epstein files, looking for President Donald Trump's name.

"My office was told that these personnel were instructed to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned. ... Why were personnel told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned?" Durbin asked in July letters to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI director Kash Patel and deputy director Dan Bongino. "What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged?"

A new bill passed by the House and Senate, and signed by Trump mandates that the government release all Epstein documents by Dec. 19 and only redact limited items.

"To reassure the American public that any files released have not been tampered with or concealed, the chain of custody forms associated with records and evidence in the Epstein files must be accounted for, analyzed, and released," the request sent Thursday said.

"There should absolutely be concern about the chain of custody of the Epstein files," Spencer Kuvin, a lawyer representing some of the Epstein survivors told CBS.

"These records have passed through too many hands, behind too many closed doors, for anyone to simply assume they're intact, unaltered, or complete," Kuvin explained. "Survivors have endured decades of secrecy, broken promises, and institutional protection of powerful men; they should not now be asked to trust a process with no independent verification."

Read the letter here.

Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team reportedly are “losing control” of the House floor.

That’s according to Punchbowl News and its cofounder, Jake Sherman, who report that what was once a rare occurrence, forcing votes via discharge petitions as a way to circumvent the Speaker — which was done to release the Epstein files — is becoming more commonplace.

“At this time, I am considering signing every discharge petition – whether I support the bill or not,” she wrote. “As a duly elected Member of Congress, I believe my colleagues should have the ability to bring legislation to the floor for a vote. Every Member deserves the right to represent their district and receive a recorded vote on their bills. This is a result of House leadership blocking Members from governing.”

It’s not just the discharge petitions, however.

“Being forced to bargain for GOP support during simple procedural votes. Calls to Cabinet secretaries from the House floor to help win over members. A prolonged debate on health care with a disengaged president. Potential retirements on the horizon,” Punchbowl reported. “This is the House Republican majority with less than 11 months until the midterm elections.”

Separately, some reports say up to 39 House Republicans could be out after this Congress by retiring or seeking other offices. Reporting on “Johnson’s Career Crisis,” Puck revealed that “one estimate puts the number as high as 20 new announcements” of Republicans exiting “in the coming weeks.”

Meanwhile, Punchbowl conceded, “we won’t say that the House is in total chaos. Total chaos is when members unleash censure resolutions against each other or a trio of House Republicans publicly claim Speaker Mike Johnson has no business running the chamber. That was last week.”

But it points to the “very tenuous reality” for Johnson and his leadership team, “as they navigate the post-shutdown climate with a soon-to-be-even-thinner three vote margin.”

What’s changed?

House Republicans used to be soldiers kept in line by “fear” of President Donald Trump. But that seems to have diminished along with his approval ratings. And, GOP lawmakers “took a beating” during last month’s elections. In short, many House Republicans may be starting to put their own careers over loyalty to the party.

Punchbowl detailed “a pair of episodes this week” that “demonstrate just how shaky the House GOP leadership’s control is.”

On the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a historically bipartisan exercise, “House Republicans struggled for more than an hour” just to “pass a rule to begin debate.”

Just to flip several conservatives, the Speaker of the House “had to call Secretary of State Marco Rubio from a room off the House floor” to obtain promises.

And in another instance, some moderate House Republicans wanting to get a bill on the floor to extend the Obamacare subsidies, “dropped a discharge petition to go over Johnson’s head” after being dissatisfied with the Speaker’s answer.

When Donald Trump launched his 2016 presidential campaign, the paleoconservative "America First" views that he expressed echoed Patrick Buchanan's isolationism and were a major departure from the hawkish Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. And now-Vice President JD Vance echoed the "America First" outlook when, in July 2024, he said he didn't "really care what happens to Ukraine, or way or another."

But veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove, in an op-ed published by the Wall Street Journal on December 10, argued that American voters aren't as isolationist as America First proponents would like. And the article is getting a rave review from former Vice President Mike Pence.

On X, formerly Twitter, Pence described Rove's op-ed as a "great essay," noting that Rove addresses the question: "How isolationist are Trump's voters?"

"The newly released White House National Security Strategy raises again the question whether Americans are turning isolationist," Rove explains. "A recent poll suggests they aren't."

The poll that Rove references was conducted by the Ronald Reagan Institute.

"The 2025 survey produced some surprising results," Rove observes. "Sixty-four percent of Americans believe it's better for the U.S. to be more engaged and take the lead. Only 33 percent think it's better for the country to be less engaged and merely react to events. The partisan breakout was also counterintuitive. Seventy-nine percent of self-identified MAGA Republicans and 57 percent of Democrats supported greater U.S. engagement. Nor are Americans turning their backs on Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Sixty-eight percent view NATO favorably, the highest share since the Reagan Institute began polling in 2018."

Rove continues, "Even more, 76 percent, support U.S. military force if a NATO ally is attacked, up from 71 percent in June. Most Americans — 59 percent — oppose withdrawing from NATO. Only 34 percent support leaving, and 1 in 5 withdrawal supporters changed their minds after being told NATO allies are increasing military spending."

Karl Rove's full Wall Street Journal op-ed is available at this link (subscription required).

The Indiana state legislature is set to vote on a new congressional map on Thursday that would favor the GOP, but after heavy pressure from the Trump White House, some critics of the move are "cautiously optimistic" that the map will fail as its opponents "dig in their heels," according to a new report from The Atlantic.

President Donald Trump has pushed for Republican-controlled states to redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, to give the party a leg-up and potentially avoid losing their House majority to Democrats. Such a map has already passed in Texas, and the process is underway in Florida, but recent victories by Democrats in off-year elections have given some red states pause, worried that their gerrymandered maps could backfire in the face of a major blue swing from voters.

Among these hesitant states has been Indiana. Ordinarily, the Hoosier State's GOP governor and supermajority in the legislature might ensure a very smooth passage of a new map. However, pressure from the White House received considerable pushback from the Indiana GOP, with The Atlantic's Russell Berman hearing from sources close to the debate that Trump's "push for mid-decade redistricting simply ran afoul of the small-c conservatism on which many Indiana Republican legislators still pride themselves."

Typically, congressional maps are only redrawn once a decade to reflect changes found in the latest census. Trump's demand for new maps comes right in the middle of the period between the 2020 and 2030 census surveys, leading to criticism that he is breaking from norms to grab power for the GOP in Congress.

One anti-redistricting advocate told Berman the reason why Indiana Republicans are opposing Trump's demands was "Midwesterners being midwestern," and preferring to play by the rules and stick to political norms. Indiana State Sen. Greg Walker concurred with that idea.

“I’m such a rule follower, it’s not even funny,” Walker.

The GOP state senator also claimed to have been the target of harassment efforts after he spoke out against redistricting, receiving unsolicited pizza deliveries and "swatting" calls at his home.

“I refuse to be intimidated,” Walker said. “I fear for this institution. I fear for the state of Indiana. And I fear for all states if we allow threats and intimidation to become the norm.”

According to Berman, opponents of the redistricting effort are now "cautiously optimistic" that this pushback will help kill the new congressional maps. One anonymous state GOP member said that their worries about opponents flip-flopping on the day of the vote were assuaged after conversations in which their colleagues said they would hold firm and vote "no."

A Cape Cod artist crafted a Nativity set perfect for New England: Mary, Joseph, baby Jesus and others are depicted by lobsters. It certainly isn't the first time a Nativty has been swapped out with other creatures, but it's causing some debate on so-called "Catholic Twitter."

Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 ban the consumption of sea creatures that lack both fins and scales, granting Old Testament protection to crustaceans like lobsters.

Still, that wasn't the inspiration behind Rosemary Quantick's Lobster Nativity, which has been for sale for a few years but has recently gained notoriety online.

Speaking to the Cape Cod Times last year, Quantick, an English immigrant, explained that her motivation was her adopted home of the Cape and the New England love of lobsters.

The Nativity set is encased in a lobster trap, rather than the manger and baby Jesus rests in a clam shell on a bed of seaweed.

Agnostic Faine Greenwood, a civilian drone mapping technology and GIS/spatial data consultant, said on BlueSky that she bought the Nativity set, prompting both chuckles and questions from followers.

"King of the Crustaceans," celebrated Kenneth Freeman.

One follower called it "Christaceans."

"With all due respect to you and your faith traditions ... what the f——?" asked author Sarah Day.

Greenwood explained she is agnostic, and was raised by other agnostics, "which probably explains a lot."

However, Christopher Roberts, a self-described "Christian raised by (sadly) Christian nationalists," also fell in love with the lobster Nativity.

Assistant Professor Brittany Sutherland, who teaches at George Mason University, wondered how something like that would play in the "deeply Catholic parts of Louisiana."

"On the one hand," she continued, "lobsters are pretty close to crawfish and Cajuns know their edible aquatic bugs. On the other hand, eating Crustacean Jesus seems pretty significant in the sin department."

That said, Transubstantiation is the Catholic belief that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine change into the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ. Holy communion is a sacrament in most Christian churches and symbolizes the sacrifice Jesus made for the sins of man.

Real estate lawyer Maggie Hooman asked "Catholic Twitter" whether they found the Nativity offensive and got some mixed answers. Most who indicated they were Catholic found it funny or acceptable but "tacky."

John Grondelski, conservative foreign policy specialist and Catholic theologian, answered, "Yes, because the Christian message of the Nativity is Incarnation — God became man, not Sebastian the Lobster. Maybe 50 years ago, as a kid, it might have been cute in a kitschy/tacky sort of way, but human embodiment is under such attack that diluting the Incarnation is wrong."

He later added, "we have an Incarnation problem today — and since religious scenes shape minds, I do not want the Savior to be thought of as a shape-shifter."

A few folks on X asked about whether it was considered offensive. Gabriel Said Reynolds, a Crowley Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology at Notre Dame, polled his following. The majority agreed it was "blasphemy."

In its report, the news and culture site Denison Forum commented, "A 'Lobster nativity scene' on Cape Cod challenges perceptions of Christmas. Consider the profound humility of Jesus, who chose to become human and sacrifice his own 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.'"

An Israeli resident questioned, "Can lobster Jesus walk on water?"

Dan Turrentine, co-host of The Huddle, said he planned on getting the lobster Nativity for former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, a devout Catholic.

Several remembered the Nativity scene in the film "Love Actually," which featured a Christmas play in which the daughter of one character, played by Emma Thompson, was "First Lobster."

"There was more than one lobster present at the birth of Jesus?" she questioned.

Meanwhile, the Church of Lorb, has embraced the lobster Nativity. The faith describes itself as "conscientious creators with plans to create and worship our Leviathan Lobster God. Lobsters don't die of old age and typically can't keep up with their gigantic size as they continue to grow and molt their shells. Together we can make a difference. The faith's mission is to help save the planet."

The lobster Nativity is available online for $114.90.