Latest news with #USCapitol
CNN
19 hours ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Supreme Court Donald Trump Supreme Court justicesFacebookTweetLink Follow Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
Forbes
a day ago
- Business
- Forbes
Senate Crypto Bill Introduces Hybrid Framework For Digital Asset Oversight
Cryptocurrency & Bitcoin on U.S Currency Investments Background with the United States Capitol ... More Building. The Senate Banking Committee released a significant new proposal last week that could reshape how America regulates digital ownership. On July 22, Senators Tim Scott, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Hagerty, and Bernie Moreno released their "Responsible Financial Innovation Act of 2025" discussion draft to solicit public feedback, which takes a notably different approach from the House's recently passed crypto legislation. While the House CLARITY Act handed primary oversight of most digital assets to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Senate is proposing a more complex hybrid approach. As the discussion draft explained, they want the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to handle exemptions and disclosure requirements for a new category called "ancillary assets," while the CFTC would still regulate these assets as commodities—a nuanced framework that could unlock new possibilities for community-based blockchain projects that have struggled to find their regulatory footing. It is a fundamentally different philosophy about how digital assets should integrate into America's financial infrastructure. Where the House sees commodities requiring CFTC oversight, the Senate sees a more nuanced landscape demanding SEC expertise, as well. A Regulatory Chess Match The divergence isn't accidental. Although the House passed its CLARITY Act last week with bipartisan support, it seemed like crypto finally had its regulatory roadmap, the Senate Banking Committee, led by Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), has long pursued a different approach. "My colleagues and I in the House and Senate share the same goal: to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets that protect investors, foster innovation, and keep the future of digital finance anchored in America," Scott remarked in announcing the discussion draft. However, the 35-page proposal represents more than shared goals. While the Senate's "ancillary assets" approach represents innovative regulatory thinking, it actually builds on a well-established but underutilized foundation of joint SEC-CFTC jurisdiction that dates back to 2000—a framework specifically designed for products that don't fit neatly into traditional securities or commodities categories. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 first established this hybrid model when it created "security futures products" that were defined as both securities under federal securities laws and futures under the Commodity Exchange Act. Dodd-Frank expanded this precedent with "mixed swaps" that require both agencies to "jointly prescribe such regulations … as may be necessary." The agencies have formalized coordination through MOUs since 2004, most recently updated in 2018 for swaps oversight. The Senate's ancillary assets framework isn't creating new authority, it's adapting the proven CFMA hybrid model for digital assets that similarly defy traditional categories. Threading the Political Needle This nuanced approach directly addresses Democratic concerns that crypto legislation could become a backdoor for avoiding investor protections. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has repeatedly warned that broad commodity classifications might let companies evade securities laws simply by tokenizing traditional investments. The ancillary asset framework acknowledges these concerns while recognizing that many blockchain-based projects—with their dynamic, programmable nature— genuinely do not resemble traditional securities. It's a more sophisticated approach than the House's broader commodity classification, potentially building the bipartisan support essential for navigating the Senate's 60-vote threshold requirement. Beyond market structure, the bill tackles illicit finance head-on with provisions requiring examination standards for digital assets and encouraging private sector partnerships with federal law enforcement. The legislation also promotes "responsible banking innovation" by ensuring financial holding companies can use digital assets and distributed ledger systems for any activity banks are otherwise authorized to provide. "For too long,' explained Senator Hagerty, 'outdated laws and regulatory uncertainty around digital asset market structure have hindered American innovation and left consumers without adequate protections." The discussion draft "demonstrates a strong commitment to unlocking the full potential of the digital asset economy by delivering responsible legislation that reflects input from stakeholders," Hagerty stated. Implementation Reality Check Senator Scott has set a September deadline for finalizing market structure legislation, but that goal seems ambitious with the political tenor and climate on the Hill. Congress faces a packed agenda including farm bills, defense authorization, and government funding battles. Industry observers suggest crypto legislation may realistically slip into early 2026. That delay might be beneficial. The discussion draft format signals genuine interest in stakeholder input, with the Banking Committee soliciting feedback through early August. This collaborative approach contrasts sharply with the regulation-by-enforcement strategy that characterized previous crypto oversight. The timeline also provides space for harmonizing House and Senate approaches. Both chambers recognize that clear rules beat regulatory uncertainty, but they're debating optimal structures. The House emphasizes commodity regulation and streamlined oversight. The Senate maintains SEC prominence with targeted exemptions. Market Forces and Community Impact Financial markets have already responded positively to regulatory clarity signals. Bitcoin reached new all-time highs following the GENIUS Act signing, and the total crypto market now exceeds $4 trillion. Major banks are announcing digital asset custody services, signaling institutional acceptance of technologies that communities have already embraced. But the real opportunity transcends individual wealth accumulation. The ancillary asset framework could enable blockchain-based community development that honors cooperative economics principles while leveraging cutting-edge technology. It acknowledges that tokenized ownership, democratic governance, and creator economies represent genuinely new economic models requiring new regulatory approaches. Therefore, the stakes riding on this legislation extend well beyond crypto markets. According to latest data, global crypto adoption grew 13% in 2024, reaching 659 million owners worldwide, with Bitcoin ownership expanding to 337 million users. In the U.S. specifically, research shows that 67% of current crypto owners plan to buy more in 2025, while 14% of non-owners plan their first purchases. Communities that have found economic opportunity in digital assets need regulatory certainty to build sustainable wealth-creation systems. Recent Kraken research found that 88% of crypto holders plan to continue investing over the next 12 months, with crypto becoming the preferred asset class for 53% of holders—a significant jump from just 36% the previous year. Without clear frameworks, this innovation and community wealth-building migrates to friendlier jurisdictions. The Bigger Picture The Senate's approach reflects growing recognition that crypto regulation requires nuance rather than broad categorization. Digital assets encompass everything from speculative meme coins to legitimate community development tools. One-size-fits-all regulation serves neither innovation nor investor protection. The ancillary asset concept represents regulatory evolution—acknowledging that blockchain technology creates new forms of value and ownership that don't fit traditional definitions. It's the kind of forward-thinking approach America needs to maintain leadership in digital finance while protecting all participants. The discussion draft format signals senators want genuine input before finalizing their regulatory strategy, with a comprehensive Request for Information covering regulatory clarity, investor protection, trading venues, custody, illicit finance, banking innovation, and preemption issues. The comment period runs through early August, providing stakeholders meaningful voice in shaping legislation that will govern digital assets for years to come. The question remains whether America can create frameworks that enable new forms of community empowerment and economic participation while maintaining the investor protections that also instill trust in the financial system. The answer will determine whether digital assets fulfill their promise of financial inclusion or remain a niche market for sophisticated traders. That long-awaited sophistication could make all the difference.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Why under-35s fall for conspiracy theories — and how to help them out of the rabbit hole — Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau
JULY 26 — Conspiracy theories are a widespread occurrence in today's hyper connected and polarised world. Events such as Brexit, the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential elections, and the Covid pandemic serve as potent reminders of how easily these narratives can infiltrate public discourse. The consequences for society are significant, given a devotion to conspiracy theories can undermine key democratic norms and weaken citizens' trust in critical institutions. As we know from the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, it can also motivate political violence. But who is most likely to believe these conspiracies? My new study with Daniel Stockemer of the University of Ottawa provides a clear and perhaps surprising answer. Published in Political Psychology, our research shows age is one of the most significant predictors of conspiracy beliefs, but not in the way many might assume. People under 35 are consistently more likely to endorse conspiratorial ideas. This conclusion is built on a solid foundation of evidence. First, we conducted a meta analysis, a 'study of studies', which synthesised the results of 191 peer-reviewed articles published between 2014 and 2024. This massive dataset, which included over 374,000 participants, revealed a robust association between young age and belief in conspiracies. To confirm this, we ran our own original multinational survey of more than 6,000 people across six diverse countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, the US and South Africa. The results were the same. In fact, age proved to be a more powerful predictor of conspiracy beliefs than any other demographic factor we measured, including a person's gender, income, or level of education. The author argues that low self-esteem can make young people more vulnerable to conspiracy theories, offering simple explanations for complex frustrations. — Pexels pic Why are young people more conspiratorial? Having established conspiracy beliefs are more prevalent among younger people, we set out to understand why. Our project tested several potential factors and found three key reasons why younger generations are more susceptible to conspiracy theories. 1. Political alienation One of the most powerful drivers we identified is a deep sense of political disaffection among young people. A majority of young people feel alienated from political systems run by politicians who are two or three generations older than them. This under representation can lead to frustration and the feeling democracy isn't working for them. In this context, conspiracy theories provide a simple, compelling explanation for this disconnect: the system isn't just failing, it's being secretly controlled and manipulated by nefarious actors. 2. Activist style of participation The way young people choose to take part in politics also plays a significant role. While they may be less likely to engage in traditional practices such as voting, they are often highly engaged in unconventional forms of participation, such as protests, boycotts and online campaigns. These activist environments, particularly online, can become fertile ground for conspiracy theories to germinate and spread. They often rely on similar 'us versus them' narratives that pit a 'righteous' in-group against a 'corrupt' establishment. 3. Low self-esteem Finally, our research confirmed a crucial psychological link to self-esteem. For individuals with lower perceptions of self worth, believing in a conspiracy theory — blaming external, hidden forces for their problems — can be a way of coping with feelings of powerlessness. This is particularly relevant for young people. Research has long shown self esteem tends to be lower in youth, before steadily increasing with age. What can be done? Understanding these root causes is essential because it shows simply debunking false claims is not a sufficient solution. To truly address the rise of conspiracy theories and limit their consequences, we must tackle the underlying issues that make these narratives so appealing in the first place. Given the role played by political alienation, a critical step forward is to make our democracies more representative. This is best illustrated by the recent election of Labor Senator Charlotte Walker, who is barely 21. By actively working to increase the presence of young people in our political institutions, we can help give them faith that the system can work for them, reducing the appeal of theories which claim it is hopelessly corrupt. More inclusive democracy This does not mean discouraging the passion of youth activism. Rather, it is about empowering young people with the tools to navigate today's complex information landscape. Promoting robust media and digital literacy education could help individuals critically evaluate the information they encounter in all circles, including online activist spaces. The link to self-esteem also points to a broader societal responsibility. By investing in the mental health and wellbeing of young people, we can help boost the psychological resilience and sense of agency that makes them less vulnerable to the simplistic blame games offered by conspiracy theories. Ultimately, building a society that is resistant to misinformation is not about finding fault with a particular generation. It is about creating a stronger, more inclusive democracy where all citizens, especially the young, feel represented, empowered, and secure. — Reuters *Jean-Nicolas Bordeleau is a Research Fellow at the Jeff Bleich Centre for Democracy and Disruptive Technologies, Flinders University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Money starts pouring into Nebraska midterm congressional races
The U.S. Capitol as lawmakers worked into the night on the "big beautiful bill" on July 2, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom) OMAHA — Two political matchups in Nebraska will likely get national attention as both could help determine which party controls what parts of Congress after the 2026 midterm elections. One is the U.S. House race in Nebraska's Omaha-based 2nd Congressional District. The seat is typically a target of both national parties, as one of the rare remaining swing districts that has stayed politically split. The seat may be more of a target now, since U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., decided not to seek reelection. Several Democrats jumped into the race, creating a politically diverse and competitive primary race. A first-time federal candidate is leading the Democratic pack in terms of fundraising as more politically established candidates are lagging behind. New federal campaign finance filings show congressional candidate newcomer and business owner Denise Powell led the way, raising $429,739 in the second quarter. Powell has connections to some of local Democrats' top donors. Much of her political team has ties to former State Sen. Tony Vargas' 2024 House bid. While money isn't the be-all in politics, it can provide a glimpse of the initial support and the viability of a candidate. Powell said, 'It's clear that people are tired of lip service from politicians.' Instead, she said, people are 'ready for someone who is ready to go to Washington to put our communities first.' She called her bid an 'opportunity to send a champion for hardworking Nebraskans to Congress who will finally put a stop to the chaos of the Trump administration.' State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, the other high-profile candidate who has been in the Democratic primary since early June, raised the second most. The incumbent, with his own list of donors, raised $130,341 over the same span. Ethan Dunn, a Cavanugh campaign spokesperson, said the senator 'continues to hear from voters across [district] that they know he will be the voice of reason amongst the Trump chaos.' 'The plan that John has to win the nomination is on track, and we are confident John's message voters will resonate with the voters,' Dunn said. Powell's campaign lists having more campaign cash on hand than Cavanaugh – with $340,121 compared to the state senator's $127,122. A third high-profile Democrat in the race, Douglas County District Court Clerk Crystal Rhoades, announced her bid Monday and just started fundraising. The same can be said of Navy veteran Kishla Askins, who joined the race last week, after the fundraising quarter ended in late June. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Also running as Democrats are Mark Johnston and Evangelos Argyrakis. Those lesser-known Democratic candidates haven't filed campaign finance forms. Federal law requires candidates to file campaign finance paperwork quarterly with the Federal Election Commission unless they have not yet raised or spent $5,000. The two highest-profile announced Republican candidates in Nebraska's 2nd District, Omaha City Council, Vice President Brinker Harding and former State Sen. Brett Lindstrom of Omaha, entered the race this month, after the fundraising quarter ended. Neither had filed FEC reports. However, Harding's campaign has said it had raised $222,000 in the first two days after announcing his bid. Lindstrom's team said the former senator raised $250,000 in his campaign's first week. National political observers view the Omaha-area House seat as a possible pickup for Democrats, although the district retains a slight GOP lean. The 2nd District includes all of Douglas and Saunders Counties, as well as western Sarpy County. Nebraska's other federal race that could garner national attention is the bid by former Omaha labor leader Dan Osborn to unseat U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb. Osborn made national headlines in 2024 for turning an expected safe race for Republicans into a potential upset bid against U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb. He outraised Fischer in 2024, according to which tracks federal fundraising. He raised $14 million, including some late money from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. For Nebraska's 2026 Senate race, Osborn has reported raising $196,541 since his July announcement, according to his latest filing. He listed having $124,202 in cash on hand. As expected, Ricketts, a former two-term governor, significantly outraised him. His campaign raised $901,113 and his separate Pete Ricketts Victory Fund raised $1.2 million. His victory fund is can be used for multiple races, political parties and causes. Ricketts has a combined war chest of about $1.5 million. Ricketts, who had to run in a 2024 special election to finish the last two years of former Republican U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse's term, raised $5.8 million against Preston Love Jr., records show. Ricketts also has used his own money to influence Nebraska politics. He retains the state's dominant political operation. Osborn, who has proven himself a prolific fundraiser, has tried to frame his race against the millionaire Ricketts as 'the billionaire versus the mechanic.' Will Coup, a Ricketts campaign spokesperson, pointed to Osborn's use of ActBlue, a fundraising tool used often by Democrats, as evidence of a nonpartisan bid Senate bid with Democratic help. 'Dan Osborn's ActBlue page makes it easy for his liberal, out-of-state donors to support him, AOC and Kamala Harris without having to switch [browser] tabs,' Coup said. Osborn has said previously that he maintains independence from the Democratic Party and that he would not caucus with either party. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
CNN
21-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
An inside look at one of the most coveted offices in the US Capitol
An inside look at one of the most coveted offices in the US Capitol Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) gives CNN's Dana Bash a tour of his office once occupied by the late Senator John McCain, as well as a "hideaway" that offers an impressive view and backdrop for bipartisan discussions both senators are known for. 02:17 - Source: CNN Vertical Politics of the Day 16 videos An inside look at one of the most coveted offices in the US Capitol Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) gives CNN's Dana Bash a tour of his office once occupied by the late Senator John McCain, as well as a "hideaway" that offers an impressive view and backdrop for bipartisan discussions both senators are known for. 02:17 - Source: CNN Democrats walk out before vote for controversial Trump nominee Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans voted on Thursday to advance the nomination of Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, to a federal judgeship, over the loud protests of Democrats. 01:42 - Source: CNN Trump's 'Manosphere' problems Influential podcasters with large audiences of millennial and Gen Z men helped propel President Donald Trump to victory in 2024. Now some of those same voices are sharing criticisms of the current administration. CNN's Steve Contorno breaks it down. 01:56 - Source: CNN Trump DOJ fires federal prosecutor in Epstein case Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in the case against accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, has been fired from her job in the Southern District of New York, according to people familiar with the situation. 01:56 - Source: CNN Bernie Sanders calls Trump's GOP 'cult of the individual' Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that Republicans developed an almost Stalinist-type devotion to President Donald Trump. 00:45 - Source: CNN This Native American senator brings Oklahoma ranch style to Washington Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) gives CNN's Dana Bash a tour of his Capitol office, which showcases his Cherokee heritage and rancher lifestyle. 02:35 - Source: CNN Ex-Trump business associate on Trump's friendship with Epstein CNN's Erin Burnett speaks with former Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino COO Jack O'Donnell about one of President Trump's previous interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. 02:27 - Source: CNN Fearing ICE crackdown, this family self-deports Fearing increased immigration enforcement, undocumented immigrant Julio Mendoza and his American wife, Sasha, made the difficult decision to self-deport to Mexico with their three children, all of whom are US Citizens. CNN's Priscilla Alvarez reports. 01:35 - Source: CNN How Trump's image is changing inside Russia Once hailed as a pro-Kremlin figure, President Donald Trump's image is changing inside Russia. It comes after Trump vowed further sanctions on the country if a peace agreement with Ukraine is not reached in 50 days. CNN's Chief Global Affairs Correspondent is on the ground in Moscow with the analysis. 01:41 - Source: CNN Rep. Jasmine Crockett responds to Trump saying she should take IQ test CNN's Laura Coates speaks with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) about President Donald Trump's comments that she and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should take an IQ test. 01:05 - Source: CNN Trump says interest in Epstein files is 'pretty boring stuff' President Donald Trump said he doesn't understand his supporters' continued interest in the Epstein files, calling it "boring," while also reiterating his call for anything 'credible' to be released. 00:56 - Source: CNN Trump's fight with MAGA base over Epstein explained President Trump is at odds with some of his own supporters over after his Attorney General Pam Bondi declined to release more documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case. CNN's Erin Burnett explains the feud inside Trump's MAGA movement. 02:20 - Source: CNN Supreme Court ruling will allow mass firings of Education Department employees The Supreme Court on Monday said President Donald Trump may proceed with his plan to carry out mass layoffs at the Department of Education in the latest win for the White House at the conservative high court. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty reports. 01:34 - Source: CNN Trump demands Russia reach peace deal within 50 days President Donald Trump made several announcements on Monday aligning him more firmly with Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion than ever before. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh breaks down the two main developments that could drastically impact the ongoing war. 01:34 - Source: CNN MTG warns of 'big' blowback in MAGA world over handling of Epstein case CNN's Manu Raju spoke with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) who is demanding "transparency" from President Donald Trump's administration when it comes to information related to accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and warned that the issue could stoke "significant" blowback from the right wing of the party. 01:04 - Source: CNN MAGA faithful weigh in on Epstein files debate At a conservative conference in Florida, Trump supporters share their views on the Epstein files fallout with CNN's Donie O'Sullivan. 01:40 - Source: CNN
