Political News

The 60-day deadline for a deal between Donald Trump and Iran has passed, and he’s in a lather over it. First Trump raged to Fox News of his displeasure with Oman’s negotiations with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the s--t out of them,” he fumed nonsensically. Then, under questioning over foreign policy, he erupted at a female journalist, repeatedly instructing her to “be quiet, be quiet, be quiet” in a vile and abusive tone. Meanwhile, officials leaked their pessimism about the war to Politico, saying things like “we never should have started this war” and revealingly admitting they have no idea what “winning” over Iran even means anymore. Translation: He lost. We talked to former Defense Department official Ariane Tabatabi. She explains the current standoff, why Trump’s rage at Oman is so absurd, how his megalomaniacal belief in his own limitless strength and power has backfired, and what might happen if Iran drags this out through the midterms. Listen to this episode here.

Throughout the 2024 election, Republican candidate Donald Trump confidently promised that if elected he would end Russia’s war in Ukraine in the first 24 hours of his second term. But 574 days later, the war in Ukraine is still raging. And it’s unexpectedly an issue for Republicans in the fast-approaching midterm elections. Nearly four-and-a-half years after Russian President Vladimir…

Source

A cartoon by Clay Jones. Related | Families of troops stranded on USS Lincoln slam Trump and Hegseth…

Source

Yes, the crypto scammer wing of the Trump family business, World Liberty Financial, now has a federally chartered bank thanks to a morally flexible President Donald Trump appointee, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould. What could possibly go wrong? You know, we knew this was coming for a while now, as World Liberty’s application had been kicking around for months.

Source

A widely covered New York Times op-ed raising alarms about how the White House has hidden critical information about President Donald Trump’s health has received the blackout treatment from Fox News. In a column for the Times published last Thursday, Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University who served as former Vice President Dick Cheney’s…

Source

On Monday morning, President Donald Trump issued a blunt warning to America’s erstwhile ally: “If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the shit out of them.” It was another one of his un-diplomatic jabs at a longtime friend—this time for the possibility that Oman might prove helpful to Iran in ending the war. But if Trump’s aggressive, crude attitude towards an ally isn’t confusing enough, it’s also another example of how Trump’s sprawling efforts at personal enrichment since he returned to office have only made US foreign policy more complicated.

Because, of course, Trump has a lavish golf course and real estate development deal, right in Oman, on the edge—literally, the cliff’s edge—of the Gulf of Oman, which is just a few dozen miles from the embattled Strait of Hormuz. And the incredibly lucrative terms of the deal—as is the case with most economic opportunities in absolute monarchies such as Oman—were granted to Trump and his business partners with the blessing of the Omani government and crown.

Will this business engagement actually deter Trump from bombing the oldest independent state in the Arab world? That’s unclear, if only because it’s so hard to distinguish Trump’s real threats when it comes to bombing from the empty ones. But the irrefutable fact that he has a large money-making opportunity in the same location where he proposes to bomb raises several questions about how he navigates his priorities as commander-in-chief and international developer.

As I’ve written before, Trump has a very good deal in Oman.

A livestream of the site shows a sun-drenched stretch of water, edged by brown desert rock outcroppings, where it’s easy to imagine minimalist boxy units, cantilevered 400 feet above the sea, starting at just $1 million.

Built by Saudi real estate developer Dar Global on land provided by the Omani government outside its capital city of Muscat, all those seaside views and quiet luxury could be a gold mine for the US president. In 2024, he earned $1 million in licensing fees from the deal. The project’s website boasts of its “ideal location.” It offers “easy access” to the Persian Gulf, which sits just a few hundred miles to the northwest via the Strait of Hormuz. Oman, the website notes, is “one of the safest countries in the world.”

But whatever conflicts of interest may be playing out in Oman are nothing new. It’s difficult to list all the places Trump’s personal business interests are intermingled with US national security interests. Even in South Korea—which Trump also lambasted recently—recently disclosed financial statements showed that Trump embarked on a new deal with some Korean developers.

Previous presidents simply have avoided conflicts of interest. But there is a special problem when it comes to Trump’s: Whether it’s in Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or the Korean peninsula, they’re all mostly licensing deals.

That means that Trump technically doesn’t own any property in Oman. The land on which the project will be constructed is owned by an Omani government entity joint partner on the project, and the project itself is owned by Dar Global, the Saudi development firm. But Trump gets paid for applying his name, managing the property, and selling luxury villas. In total, he has earned somewhere around $35 million on his licensing projects in the Middle East, most of which have been in partnership with Dar Global. In Oman alone, he appears to have earned $6.8 million—and that’s before the property has been built. It’s not clear from the livestream or any information on Dar Global’s website how far along the construction has progressed.

But for a president trying to negotiate Middle East peace or head off a nuclear threat, this is a uniquely bad conflict of interest. Not only are his personal money-making efforts located in the middle of conflict zones, but his chief way to make money is selling the image of success, luxury, and peace. And that’s something our enemies definitely know.

It’s not looking good for the disgraced MAGA Representative Cory Mills.

Governor Ron DeSantis told reporters Friday that he didn’t support Mills’ bid ahead of the state’s primary elections on Tuesday. Earlier this month, Florida Representatives Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Haridopolos endorsed Ryan Elijah, a former television anchor. While Donald Trump announced his endorsement for Mills in February, the president has remained quiet on the subject ever since.

An August survey found Mills only held a 6-point lead over Elijah, and also revealed that a whopping 41 percent of Republican voters were still “undecided.”

Mills’ embattled bid for reelection may be coming to an end—in what would be a clear sign that President Donald Trump’s grip is loosening on Florida Republicans.

In the past year, the scrutiny has intensified on the numerous allegations against Mills. The Florida lawmaker has been accused of sexual misconduct, harassment, campaign finance violations, financial disclosure violations, accepting inappropriate gifts, and multiple ethics violations. He has faced a months-long ethics probe and is reportedly under investigation by the Department of Justice.

And then there’s his dating history. Asked by Mother Jones about reports that he had dated a 19-year-old while he was a sitting member of Congress, Mills had this to say:

“There’s nothing illegal about two consenting adults dating. The obsession over a man’s dating life is disturbing at best. I’ve been separated from my now ex-wife years prior to our divorce finalizing. Whether in office or as a private citizen, adults are entitled to date in their attempt to find their person. Sometimes you get lucky and find that immediately, but many are not so blessed. Feel free to run your new and slanderous hit piece.”

Still, Mills has resisted calls to resign. On Tuesday, Florida Republicans will make the decision to leave for him.

Attorney General Todd Blanche knows who his client is—and it’s not the American people. It’s not even the government. It’s President Donald Trump, of course. During his confirmation hearing, Blanche had that little slip-up where, when asked if he and Trump were friends, he went with “I’m his lawyer” before realizing how that sounded and shifting quickly to “Was his lawyer, and now I’m…

Source

During a Q&A in the Oval Office on Monday, President Donald Trump crashed out—as the kids say—at CNN White House correspondent Kristen Holmes. Trump was finishing a long, rambling statement about his recent discussion with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un when he singled out Holmes for having the audacity to ask a question about whether the Korean leader asked Trump to end military exercises in…

Source

President Donald Trump lashed out at a female reporter Monday for asking about his decision to significantly reduce military coordination with South Korea.

Trump had no problem ranting about his supposedly great relationship with Kim Jong Un during his photo-op with a teenage lifeguard—but had a major meltdown when CNN’s Kaitlin Holmes asked whether the North Korean leader had requested he scale back joint military exercises with South Korea.

“Quiet, quiet, quiet! You’re very disrespectful in front of this young man. Okay? Don’t you find her disrespectful? Heh. He understands. Quiet!” Trump said.

Trump scolds a reporter: Quiet! You’re very disrespectful in front of this young man. Don’t you find her disrespectful? He understands. Quiet! You’re fake news. BE QUIET! You’re a fake reporter. pic.twitter.com/AevIZXEaGp

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2026

His tantrum only got worse when the reporter revealed she was with CNN.

“Fake news. You’re fake news. You’re a loud—you’re a loud, boisterous person. You’re fake news. Be quiet. Be quiet. Be quiet!” Trump said. “You’re a fake reporter, and you report fake news.”

Trump’s shameful outburst is just the latest in a well-documented history of lashing out at female reporters. The president has called female reporters “the worst” and “second-rate,” telling them to “be quiet,” that they “know nothing about nothing,” and that he doesn’t like their “attitude.” His vitriol has only intensified during his second term. In November, he told Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey “Quiet, Piggy!” Last month, he targeted CNN’s Kaitlan Collins with transphobic jokes.

Separately Monday, the White House attacked Holmes for another question about criticism of the president’s cozy relationship with his aide Natalie Harp, calling the question “disgusting and inhumane” in a post on X. Clearly, it struck a nerve.

President Trump on Monday again downplayed reports of low food supply and poor conditions on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier—which has spent a whopping nine months at sea, primarily in the Persian Gulf.

“Mr. President, is there enough food on the USS Lincoln?” a reporter asked Trump right after he finished berating a CNN reporter who asked him about North Korea.

“Yeah, it is. That was a CNN fake report. The Lincoln has been out there for a period of time … but over the years we’ve had ‘em out there much longer,” Trump said. “I was at a group meeting, and an admiral came up to see me over the weekend.... He said ‘I’ve been on ships that are out there much longer than that sir, and I know people on the Lincoln, they say it’s beautifully maintained’.… It was fake news reporting from CNN.”

Reporter: Is there enough food on the USS Lincoln?

Trump: Yeah, there is. It was a it was a CNN fake report. pic.twitter.com/l7JaCA8wKW

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2026

It wasn’t just CNN. Multiple outlets have reported extremely low morale aboard the Lincoln caused by a low supply of dismal-looking food, provisions, and contaminated water—which, combined with the nine months on the water, has caused some of the sailors on the Lincoln to literally jump ship. Family members of sailors and Marines aboard the Lincoln have detailed concerns about their mental health to various publications, including the Military Times, USA Today, and MS NOW.

The Republican response to these reports has been either flat-out denial with no evidence—like Trump—or attacking and emasculating the sailors.

“How weak are you?” Fox News contributor Joey Jones ranted on Sunday. “To sit there and say it was terrible because you had a corndog and a hotdog?… If this is a representation of who our military is now … we’re just Rome sitting here waiting to burn.”

Over half of America opposes the war on Iran. It seems like some of the people fighting it are coming around too.

Sporting red-white-and-blue sneakers and a matching bedazzled manicure ahead of Florida’s primaries on Tuesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz smiles and tells voters she is “running for reelection to Congress.” That’s true — with a caveat. Wasserman Schultz is seeking her 12th term by running in a new district after Republicans scrambled the state’s congressional map earlier this year.

Source

President Trump is making it easier for convicted felons to regain their gun rights.

Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a new regulation Monday that allows convicted felons to apply to restore their access to guns. The Justice Department estimates that 330,000 people will attempt to take advantage of the new rule when applications open next month.

Federal law prohibits anyone from possessing a gun who commits a crime punishable by more than one year, as well as undocumented immigrants, dishonorably discharged military veterans, and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Overall, about 30 million Americans can’t legally own firearms due to criminal convictions.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” Blanche said.

Previously, only those who were pardoned for their crimes regained gun rights. Last year, pardon attorney Liz Oyer was fired from the DOJ after refusing to restore the gun rights of actor Mel Gibson, who was convicted of domestic violence in 2011. Under the new plan, registered sex offenders, violent criminals, and undocumented immigrants will still be barred from owning guns, the DOJ said.

In his second term, Trump has expanded the rights of gun owners and manufacturers, signing executive orders stretching the Second Amendment as far as he can (except for trans people) and reviving attacks on Democrats for “coming for your guns.” This new move from the president will curry favor from gun enthusiasts and organizations like the National Rifle Association, which have long fought regulations that would reduce gun violence and mass shootings. In this case, Trump only cares about making his right-wing base happy.

Recent news about Democratic National Committee has all been terrible. The author of the committee’s much-delayed autopsy of the 2024 campaign hinted that some of his criticisms of the party were censored. The committee is millions of dollars in debt, while its Republican counterpart has more than $100 million on hand. Articles in The New York Times and other publications have portrayed party chair Ken Martin as incompetent and hot-tempered, reportedly throwing a phone at one of his aides.

But over the weekend, the DNC made three decisions that showed how the party committee can be a force for progress and innovation in a party desperate for both. Thank goodness. All is not lost at party headquarters.

The official party, which is made up of 450 members from across the country, adopted a wide array of resolutions over the weekend. One was to formally approve the calendar for the upcoming Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina’s primary will be held first on January 22, 2028 (a Saturday), then Nevada on Tuesday, February 1, New Hampshire on February 8, New Mexico on February 15, Michigan the following Tuesday, and finally Virginia on the Tuesday after that, February 29. (New Hampshire is very protective of its first-in-the-nation status and might try to be first again.) That’s a great mix. States in every region of the country. Some with large Black populations, others with large Latino populations, some very urban; some quite rural (New Hampshire). Lots of different industries and kinds of workers are in those states.

Some progressives are complaining that starting off in South Carolina gives an unfair advantage to center-left candidates, since establishment Democrats such as Representative James Clyburn have a lot of sway there. Those in the party (left and center-left) who don’t want Kamala Harris to again be the party’s nominee worry heavily Black South Carolina leading the process tips the scales too far in favor of the former vice-president. I think they’re wrong—or at least overstating their case. Close to half of the voters in South Carolina’s primary will be white, and many of the African Americans there are young, progressive, or both. I don’t think Harris (or another center-left Black candidate such as Maryland Governor Wes Moore) is automatically guaranteed to carry South Carolina, which was mostly recently won by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

Even if Harris wins South Carolina, that momentum doesn’t ensure her victories in the next several states. South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico are so different that it’s hard to imagine that a single candidate wins all four. If someone does, then that person is a really strong candidate. This combination of states requires a candidate to have a fairly broad support within the party to win lots of states consecutively. That’s how it should be.

This calendar officially ends the days when the party that is supposed to represent America’s diversity had its two most important contests, the ones where most campaign stops were held and the field winnowed, in two of the least-diverse states in the country (Iowa and New Hampshire).

Second, the full DNC rejected a proposal from the party’s Rules and Bylaws Committee that would have banned ranked-choice voting in the presidential primaries. Ranked-choice voting is the system by which people list their preferred candidates in order and the choices of the lowest-ranked candidates are discarded until one person has a majority. It’s what New York City Democrats used in their most recent mayoral primary. Several states vote this way too.

Ranked-choice is a particularly useful system for races with more than two candidates, allowing voters to both choose their favorite and then rank one of the leading candidates if their favorite isn’t among the top. A presidential primary will likely have several candidates, and sometimes hopefuls drop out after people have already voted.

According to DNC rules, a candidate doesn’t win delegates unless they win at least 15 percent of the vote in a state. So currently, if you back someone who finishes at 14 percent or below, that vote is essentially wasted. With ranked-choice, that 14 percent will be redistributed to higher-polling candidates. That won’t make much difference in the total delegate math. But it means that more voters will have gotten to select one of the top candidates.

Third, the DNC adopted a resolution calling for Democratic members of Congress “to craft legislation abolishing ICE.” Conservatives have seized on this resolution, arguing that it shows the Democrats are too liberal. But it’s important to distinguish between abolishing police and abolishing ICE, both stands adopted by some on the left. In terms of electoral politics, while abolishing police polls terribly, close to a majority of Americans favor getting rid of ICE. So this isn’t a huge political risk.

And in terms of policy, getting rid of ICE is a much more realistic goal than cutting back on police. Advocates calling for the abolition of both ICE and local police departments correctly argue that both kinds of law enforcement often ignore civilian authority, brutalize people, and discriminate against people of color. The differences are that police departments also provide a vital service of fighting local crime and report to a diffuse array of mayors and city council members across the country. In contrast, ICE has been turned into essentially a standing army for Trump, preying on liberal cities and activists. And since we have local police departments, the FBI, and numerous other agencies to enforce laws across the country, the United States does not actually need a special apparatus for interior immigration enforcement. I am not suggesting getting rid of all immigration law or personnel. The Customs and Border Patrol, for example, is still useful. But America was fine before ICE was created in 2003 and the heinous actions of the agency during both of Trump’s terms suggest we need to rethink our immigration infrastructure now.

DNC policy resolutions have no practical effect. Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer aren’t likely to demand that all the party’s candidates pledge to abolish ICE—and might even distance themselves from this idea. That’s fine. The party’s voters overwhelmingly support getting rid of ICE. So it’s great that the DNC is representing their perspective and pushing congressional Democrats in that direction.

None of these positive moves have much to do with Martin himself or the party’s lackluster fundraising under his leadership. The party should still take stock of whether Martin is the right leader ahead of a critical presidential election. His messy handling of the autopsy convinces me that Martin should be replaced.

But the DNC is bigger than Martin—and at least this weekend, better.

Sen. Jon Ossoff held a rally in Atlanta, Georgia, on Monday, where he went after the abject corruption of the Republican Party, from President Donald Trump down to his GOP challenger, Rep. Mike Collins, who is facing multiple ethics investigations over alleged misuse of funds. “Speaking of crooks,” Ossoff began. “Now remember, Mike’s already under federal investigation for illegally funneling…

Source

A cartoon by Pedro Molina. Related | ICE’s new body cam policy is predictably devious…

Source

President Trump’s family members are dodging subpoenas in his defamation lawsuit against the BBC. 

The British network asked a U.S. federal judge for help in getting documents and testimony from Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner, the Associated Press reports, citing court documents. Serving the subpoenas has posed a challenge due to all three having Secret Service agents and other security protection, the documents stated. 

Trump filed the $10 billion lawsuit in December, claiming the British network defamed him in a 2024 documentary by editing his speech on January 6, 2021 before the Capitol insurrection. He accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts” of his  speech to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning” of what he said.

But the lawsuit has had unintended consequences for the president. The network demanded Trump turn over financial documents to demonstrate financial harm from the documentary, to which a judge agreed. The judge also approved subpoenas of his family members and close advisers, including Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. The BBC has additionally asked for more records related to former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into January 6. 

Trump balked at handing over any financial documents, filing an emergency motion to pause the judge’s order that was later granted. Now, though, the BBC wants to know what information the Trump children have, as they were reportedly present while the president was revising his speech that he would deliver after his supporters had stormed the Capitol. Trump’s lawyers say that “the BBC is simply trying to distract away from their own obvious liability.”

“The BBC intentionally defamed President Donald J. Trump, and now the BBC is seeking to harass him, his family, and supporters by abusing the deposition process,” Trump’s legal team said in a statement. 

Trump probably thought he could scare the BBC into a settlement payday and some favorable coverage. Now, he’s having to fight attempts to discover his internal finances and what his family knows about January 6, 2021.  

On Tuesday, Republican primary voters in central Florida will decide whether Rep. Cory Mills should once again be their party’s nominee for Congress. In doing so, they will weigh the value of the congressman’s “Complete and Total Endorsement” from President Donald Trump versus the reality of voting for a man whose past 18 months look like this:

• February 2025: Washington, DC, police nearly arrest Mills after a girlfriend calls 911 and accuses him of domestic assault; she recants the accusation after reportedly being pressured to do so by the congressman. 
• May 2025: Army veterans accuse Mills of obtaining a Bronze Star through stolen valor.
• August 2025: An ex-girlfriend—whom Mills was cheating on with the partner who accused him of abuse—seeks a restraining order against Mills after the congressman is accused of threatening to potentially share explicit videos recorded during their relationship.
• October 2025: A Florida judge grants the restraining order after finding that a key part of the congressman’s testimony in the “dating violence” case had not been “truthful.”
• November 2025: The House Ethics Committee establishes a subcommittee to investigate allegations against Mills.
• May 2026: The ethics committee reveals that it has authorized more than 20 subpoenas and obtained thousands of documents as part of its investigation into “serious and complex” allegations against Mills.
• July 2026: NBC News reports that Mills is under investigation by the Department of Justice; sources tell ABC News that the investigation is partly about his finances. Mills responds by saying there is no confirmation that he is under investigation.

The full list of Mills’ many controversies is much longer. If Mills wins on Tuesday, it will be a testament not only to the power of a Trump endorsement but also to a Republican Party that has turned the other way when it comes to allegations of egregious misconduct. From there, he will have to win a general election in a Republican-leaning district Democrats hope to flip this year. 

If Mills is defeated, he will become the fourth man in Congress this year to lose his job or retire early after being accused of misconduct against women. In April, Reps. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) resigned after facing potential expulsion. Earlier this month, Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) announced that he was ending his reelection bid after the ethics committee recommended that he be censured. Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) has so far refused to step down in response to groundbreaking reporting from my colleague Abby Vesoulis about allegations of domestic abuse by Miller.

Mills may become the first of these men to lose his job at the ballot box, rather than by resigning or retiring. Ryan Elijah, a former local TV news anchor, is in a strong position to potentially defeat Mills on Tuesday. He outraised Mills last month and received the endorsement of two of Mills’ GOP colleagues in Florida: Reps. Mike Haridopolos and Anna Paulina Luna. Mills, meanwhile, brought in only about $16,000 in July—an abysmal amount for a sitting congressman. (One of Mills’ biggest recent campaign donors is another Florida man who attracted the attention of the ethics committee: former Rep. Matt Gaetz.) 

Public polling in the race remains limited; a recent survey showed Mills leading by 6 points with 41 percent of voters still undecided. The share of undecided voters does not reflect well on Mills, who was first elected in 2022 and has had years to earn the support of his constituents. Trump’s advisers may also be trying to distance themselves; the president did not include Mills in a string of social media posts last week touting candidates he has endorsed in Florida. On Friday, Gov. Ron DeSantis added to Mills’ problems, saying “I have not endorsed Cory Mills, and I do not support Cory Mills.”

As he fights to stay in office, Mills has stuck to a Trumpian playbook of denial and deception. He has said that he was not involved in any criminal or civil proceedings when Trump endorsed him in February 2026. That is true but only barely: The restraining order placed on him in Florida by Judge Fred Koberlein Jr. had recently expired. Mills has also downplayed the restraining order by calling it a “social media injunction.” That is not accurate. Koberlein barred Mills from contacting his ex-girlfriend Lindsey Langston, and going within 500 feet of her home and place of work. As part of the order, the judge also banned him from directly referring to Langston on social media because he felt that doing so was necessary to protect her from additional “dating violence.”

An excerpt of Judge Koberlein’s 2025 decision.Mother Jones

In a similar vein, Mills has claimed that he has “never gone to any proceedings.” It’s true that he has never been criminally charged, but he spent hours in court proceedings during the restraining order case last year. He has also stated that “no one ever claimed” he committed domestic abuse. That is also false. Police body-camera footage obtained by the Washington Post and a police report obtained by NBC4 Washington show Sarah Raviani, the girlfriend who called 911, did accuse him of abuse.

Raviani later told the officer that “he wants me to say” that the bruises and marks on her body “were from our vacation and that I bruise easily.” The officer believed that she was talking to Mills on the phone at that time. Raviani went on to retract her allegations, saying that the bruising came from riding a camel during a trip to Dubai with Mills. 

One aspect of Mills’ biography that has attracted relatively little attention is his pattern of dating young women involved in Republican politics. Langston was in her early twenties and nearly two decades Mills’ junior when the two began dating in 2021. Sarah Raviani was 27 when she called 911 to report alleged abuse by the then-44-year-old congressman. Raviani co-founded a group called “Iranians for Trump”; Langston has served as a state committee member for the Florida GOP.

In 2023, Mills began dating a woman who had graduated from high school in 2022, according to reporting by the independent journalist Roger Sollenberger. The congressman was in his 40s at the time; she would have been 19 or 20 and working in Republican politics, according to public records.

I asked Mills via text message if he disputed dating the woman and whether he dated a 19-year-old while a member of Congress. Mills replied, “Mother Jones’ slanderous and misleading comments, combined with Roger Sollenberger’s continued false accusations from known leftist media, makes your request absurd.” 

He continued, “There’s nothing illegal about two consenting adults dating. The obsession over a man’s dating life is disturbing at best. I’ve been separated from my now ex-wife years prior to our divorce finalizing. Whether in office or as a private citizen, adults are entitled to date in their attempt to find their person. Sometimes you get lucky and find that immediately, but many are not so blessed. Feel free to run your new and slanderous hit piece.”

When I profiled Mills earlier this year, untangling the congressman’s many dubious claims took months of reporting. I ended up speaking with 18 people who have known Mills from his youth to the present day. The picture they painted was almost universally unflattering. 

As one former associate put it to me, Mills is a “human fucking trainwreck.” Others called him a “little bitch,” “repulsive and vile,” and a “schmuck bordering on being a douchebag.” Adam Ehrhardt, a medic who served under Mills in the Army, called his former sergeant a “pathological liar.”

Mills’ time testifying in the restraining order case last year raised more doubts about the congressman’s honesty. While on the stand, the congressman told Langston’s lawyer that he was not in divorce proceedings. Langston’s attorney then revealed that she was holding the paperwork from Mills’ ongoing divorce in her hand. “He lied in front of a judge,” Langston said in an interview with a Florida news outlet this month. “He lied under oath.” 

Judge Koberlein made a similar suggestion when assessing Mills’ claim that he no longer had access to intimate videos of Langston. As Koberlein put it in his decision granting the restraining order: “The Court, considering the totality of the testimony and circumstances, does not find [Mills’] testimony concerning the intimate videos to be truthful.”

An excerpt of Judge Koberlein’s decision in which he found that part of Mills’ testimony had not been “truthful.”Mother Jones

Mills has been similarly deceitful about his military record. He has claimed to have been a member of Joint Special Operations Command, the elite group that oversees much of US special operations forces. Service records for Mills released by the Army provide no evidence that he was part of US special forces. An Army official also told me that Mills “attended Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) in 2002 but did not complete the course.” Former military contractors who worked with Mills in Iraq and Afghanistan told me he claimed to have been an Army Ranger, an Army sniper, and a special forces qualified medic. None of that is supported by Mills’ service records. 

Most egregiously, Mills has been accused of obtaining a Bronze Star under false pretenses. To justify the Bronze Star, Mills has produced the official form used to nominate him for the award. The document, which was submitted about 18 years or more after the alleged heroic acts it describes, claims that Mills saved the lives of two comrades “while under intense enemy fire” in Iraq in 2003. One of those men, Joe Heit, has told me and NOTUS that Mills did not save his life. Heit said he has no memory of ever seeing Mills in Iraq. The other person whose life Mills supposedly saved is a former medic who was grievously wounded rushing to Heit’s aid. That soldier’s mother has said that he has no memory of the battle.

The Bronze Star form also claims that, during a different battle, Mills saved the life of a third soldier by bounding forward under “murderous enemy fire.” From there, it states that Mills subdued an “enemy insurgent” who had captured Sgt. First Class Joe Ferrand. Ferrand has written in a statement shared with congressional investigators that he “solemnly swear[s]” that the story is entirely made up. “The act never took place,” he wrote. “The event never happened.”

I asked Mills on Sunday if he stands by the claim that he saved Ferrand’s life. In response, he texted me an Army record that shows he received a Bronze Star, and said that there are “confirmed audits” and validation of his awards by the Army and the Department of War. The real question is whether the award was obtained through false claims of heroism. I asked Mills three times if he still claims to have saved Ferrand’s life; he responded to each of those messages without addressing the question.

A handwritten statement from Joe Ferrand refuting the claim that Mills saved his life.Obtained by Mother Jones

The full scope of Mills’ misrepresentations is much broader. He first ran for Congress by presenting himself as a successful businessman. Court records I reviewed make clear that his business, Pacem Defense, which specialized in selling grenades to foreign militaries, was falling apart when he first ran for office. Since entering Congress, he claims to have stepped away from Pacem Defense and related businesses by placing those assets in a “blind trust.”

Kedric Payne, vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told me earlier this year the set up of Mills’ blind trust does not make sense because his financial disclosure forms list the share he owns in the companies that are in it. As Payne noted, “If you can see what your holdings are, it is not a blind trust.”

Late last year, Pacem indefinitely furloughed many of its workers as it was hounded in court for tens of millions of dollars in unpaid debt. Still, Pacem managed to keep money flowing to at least one company. A filing in another lawsuit filed against Pacem shows that it paid $12,000 per month in rent to a company called Pacem Estate Holdings during the period when its workers were furloughed. Mills owns 100 percent of Pacem Estate Holdings, according to his congressional financial disclosure. In short, Pacem stopped paying workers but apparently kept money flowing to a company wholly owned by Mills. 

Like many of Mills’ former associates, Florida primary voters who take the time to look into the congressman may similarly decide they want nothing to do with him. Or they could pull the lever for a congressman their president called a “Tremendous Champion for the Great People” of his district. 

First lady Melania Trump announced on Monday that she and an unnamed “representative” reunited a Ukrainian child with their family as part of her campaign to get Russia to stop abducting innocent kids in its war to take over Ukraine. “There is nothing more powerful than reuniting a mother with her child after an extended period of time. My representative and I are focused on helping…

Source

“JD Vance is a dangerous extremist who embraces a set of ideas that should put a chill down the spine of every American.”

This morning, I appeared on Democracy Now! to discuss my book, The Nerd Reich: Silicon Valley Fascism and the War on Democracy. Click here to watch my full interview with Amy Goodman and Anjali Kamat.

This is it! Last day to pre-order The Nerd Reich book.

First-week sales make a HUGE difference. If every reader of this newsletter buys the book, we’ll be a smashing success. Give the tech fascists hell—make The Nerd Reich sell!

Order it at Bookshop to support independent bookstores and this newsletter.

Or buy it at your local bookstore—or wherever you buy your books—tomorrow.

Here’s the latest review from Slate:

You could not ask for a more complete and hair-raising compendium of the insane things that Silicon Valley moguls have said and advocated for than journalist Gil Durán’s new book, The Nerd Reich. The book, based on a fiery newsletter Durán publishes about technology and the San Francisco Bay Area, identifies such billionaires as venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel as the spiders at the center of a web of “philosophers,” tech evangelists, start-up founders, and—most disturbingly—politicians who subscribe to a set of authoritarian ideas and plans for the future based on half-baked theories and an incomplete understanding of how the world works.Tech Oligarchs Have a Certain Future in Mind. It Completely Misunderstands How the World Works.A new book thoroughly catalogs the insane things that tech moguls like Peter Thiel have advocated for.