Embattled Maine Democrat deadlocked with Collins despite controversies in key Senate race, new poll shows
Graham Platner, the populist Democratic Senate nominee in Maine, is in a virtual dead heat in a crucial Senate showdown with longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to a new poll. Platner, the embattled candidate who has been facing a slew of controversies, stands at 49% support among likely voters questioned in a New York Times/Portland Press Herald/Siena poll released on Monday, with Collins at 47%, and 3% of respondents undecided or refusing to answer. Platner’s two-point edge is within the survey’s sampling error, meaning the contest is virtually tied. Collins, a moderate Republican who at times votes against President Donald Trump’s agenda, is running for a sixth six-year term in the Senate. The high-profile and likely combustible and expensive race is among a handful that will determine if the GOP holds onto its slim Senate majority in November’s midterm elections. Republicans currently control the chamber 53-47 and flipping the Senate seat in left-leaning Maine is a key part of the Democrats’ path to retake the majority. GAME ON IN KEY SENATE RACE AS PLATNER CAPTURES DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION Platner, a military combat veteran and oyster farmer who is backed by progressive champions Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Rep. Ro Khanna of California, earlier this month easily defeated two longshot rivals in Maine’s Democratic Senate primary. Platner, who advocates an economically populist agenda as he takes aim at corporate influences and advocates for the working class, also topped two-term Democratic Gov. Janet Mills in the primary. The governor’s name remained on the ballot even though Mills, who had been backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, suspended her bid this spring after significantly trailing Platner in fundraising and polling. Platner’s victory also came as he was facing one of the roughest stretches of his bid for the U.S. Senate. He was playing defense the past couple of months amid multiple controversies. They included inflammatory online comments made on Reddit, a well-publicized and now covered-up tattoo on his chest that resembled a Nazi symbol, recent reports that he exchanged sexually explicit messages with several women while married, and allegations from ex-girlfriends of a history of rape fantasies, heavy drinking and violent episodes. Platner has called the allegations of violence untrue. THE TEN RACES THAT WILL DETERMINE THE SENATE’S MAJORITY A day before the primary, a former high-level staffer from the Platner campaign wrote in the Washington Post that Platner “is not someone who would be good for Maine or for the country.” The mounting controversies grabbed plenty of attention and triggered some Democrats in the nation’s capital to question whether Platner was damaged goods, but didn’t stop him from riding a populist wave to capture the nomination. More than 9 in 10 Platner supporters questioned in the poll said they had heard about his controversies but that their vote for him was based on where he stands on the issues. Platner, who has acknowledged his battle with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from his three tours of duty in the war in Iraq with the Marines and one tour with the Army National Guard in Afghanistan, apologized for his controversial Reddit posts after some of them made headlines last fall soon after he launched his Senate campaign. And Platner has said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007 while drinking with fellow Marines stationed in Croatia. He said that he covered up the tattoo with a new design after learning last year that it resembled a Nazi symbol. But allegations from an ex-girlfriend raise questions about Platner’s timeline regarding knowledge of the tattoo. In his primary night victory speech, Platner emphasized that he’s a changed man. “If you believe, as I do, that we can change our politics and change our country, then you must also believe that people can change,” Platner told the crowd. “And the reason I believe that is because I have lived it. And the reason that I have lived it is because of my wife.” DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB The new poll, conducted June 19-26, suggests Platner is having some difficulty winning over some voters who want the Democrats to take back power in Congress. Fifty-four percent of respondents said they’d like to see the Democrats win back the Senate majority in the midterms, five points higher than the 49% who are supporting Platner. And Collins is capturing 10% of voters who prefer the Democrats control the Senate. The poll also indicates that a majority of Maine voters don’t believe Platner has “good character” or the “right kind of moral values” and nearly half say he’s too extreme. By contrast, more than 6 in 10 say Collins has “good character” and the “right kind of moral values” and only a third said she was too extreme for Maine. Meanwhile, some Democratic respondents worried that the 41-year-old Platner, who has never held elective office, would be “too inexperienced.” But there are also warning signs for Collins. A majority questioned said they thought the senator would be too supportive of Trump and even some of her own supporters worry that the 73-year-old Collins is too old to be an effective senator. The senator voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. And early last year she opposed the confirmation of now-Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But she is also remembered for her 2018 vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which eventually helped the court’s conservative majority overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Beating Collins won’t be easy. Six years ago, public opinion polls indicated the senator was headed to defeat, but Collins defied expectations and won re-election by topping then-Democratic state House Speaker Sara Gideon by nine points. The new survey is the latest to indicate Platner with a slight edge over Collins, although a
Obama takes new swipe at Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th birthday: ‘Deep flaw’
Former President Barack Obama took aim at the Founding Fathers ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, saying they held a “deep flaw” for their ties to slavery despite being “geniuses.” “I think sometimes we get confused in thinking that these two stories are separate. They’re intertwined, right? Which is why it’s possible for me to be a great admirer of George Washington, and also acknowledge he was a slaveholder,” said Obama in an interview Sunday with MSNOW. The 44th president’s appearance comes as most Americans prepare to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday on Saturday with patriotic events across the country, while Obama is using the milestone to deliver a more cautionary message about the state of American democracy. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ “That does not negate [Washington’s] greatness, it simply acknowledges that there’s a profound deep flaw in these Founding Fathers who were also geniuses and gave us these tools,” Obama said. “It’s that we’re this mixed bag, we’ve got contradictions. And embody the country’s contradictions,” he added. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ Obama has been making many media appearances leading up to and following the opening of his presidential center in Chicago earlier this month. The expansive center includes a museum, library branch, community programming and is intended as a legacy project tied to Obama’s political roots on Chicago’s South Side. OBAMA KNOCKS FOUNDERS AT PRESIDENTIAL CENTER DEBUT BEFORE AMERICA’S 250TH: ‘FELL TERRIBLY SHORT’ During the center’s opening ceremony, which attracted former presidents and Hollywood elites, Obama took a swipe at the founders. “The success of this experiment was never a given,” Obama said in his speech, referring to the nation’s founding. “In forming our union, the founders fell terribly short of the Declaration’s promise, leaving slavery intact, allowing states to restrict the franchise to white men who owned property. But in drafting a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, they did have the foresight, the genius, to provide us with a framework that allows each generation to make our union more perfect,” he added. Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office for additional comment on Monday. During Obama’s early political rise, researchers found that some of his White ancestors had owned slaves in the U.S., a discovery that has resurfaced periodically in political discourse, including in 2019 comments by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War,” then-Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirmed to the Associated Press in 2007 of the future president’s family history.
Thomas, Gorsuch target landmark ruling Trump says protects the ‘fake news’
Two of the Supreme Court‘s conservative justices criticized the majority’s decision not to take up attorney Alan Dershowitz’s defamation case against CNN, saying the high court missed an opportunity to revisit a controversial 1960s defamation precedent. The dissent from the court’s conservative wing effectively called on the justices to revisit long-standing libel precedent, echoing President Donald Trump’s 2016 calls to loosen U.S. libel laws. Dershowitz, who has represented famous figures like Trump, O.J. Simpson and Leona Helmsley, claimed CNN deceptively edited a snippet of his defense during Trump’s first impeachment trial about “quid pro quo[s]” to make it sound like he said the opposite of his fuller statements and used that clip to damage his reputation. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — appointees of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Trump, respectively — criticized their colleagues for relying on the “actual malice” standard in evaluating whether CNN defamed Dershowitz, arguing the standard is not rooted in the Constitution and instead was created in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. ISRAELI PM NETANYAHU INITIATING DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST NEW YORK TIMES OVER CONTROVERSIAL ‘DOG RAPE’ STORY “Predictably, Dershowitz did not prevail under that exacting standard, which this Court created in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Dershowitz now asks this Court to overrule Sullivan and related precedents,” the conservatives wrote. Dershowitz also reacted to the dissent in remarks to Fox News Digital, calling the majority’s standard “impossible” to overcome. “All the judges agreed that CNN lied about me,” he said Monday. “But the majority ruled, over dissents, that I had to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence— an impossible standard that I believe will be overruled in years to come.” The Sullivan case arose after a Montgomery, Alabama, commissioner sued the Times for libel over a full-page advertisement criticizing how the city treated civil rights protesters. An Alabama jury awarded damages to L.B. Sullivan even though he was not mentioned by name in the ad. The Supreme Court later reversed the ruling, holding that a public official cannot prevail in a defamation case unless he proves the statement was made with “actual malice” — knowing it was false or acting with reckless disregard for the truth. “The actual-malice standard for public figures bears no relation to the text, history, or structure of the Constitution,” Thomas and Gorsuch wrote Monday in Dershowitz’ case. “Instead, the founding generation believed that, if anything, public figures had stronger claims for damages when they were defamed.” As one historical example, Thomas and Gorsuch pointed to the Sedition Act of 1798, which imposed a far lower threshold for defamatory statements about public officials. Then-Rep. Matthew Lyon, D-Vt., was prosecuted under the law for characterizing President John Adams as someone with “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice” during American tensions with France. JUDGE DISMISSES TRUMP’S $10B DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WALL STREET JOURNAL OVER EPSTEIN STORY President Thomas Jefferson allowed that law to expire in 1801 and pardoned many caught in its net. More recently, Trump has called for loosening U.S. libel laws, echoing concerns similar to those expressed by Thomas and Gorsuch about the court’s defamation jurisprudence. While running for president in 2016, Trump pledged to “open up our libel laws” if elected to pursue the ideological conglomerate he often labels “fake news.” SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER Journalists who “write purposefully negative and horrible and false articles — we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. He has often singled out defendant CNN more than most – famously warring regularly with its then-White House correspondent, podcaster Jim Acosta. During one 2017 incident, Acosta repeatedly interrupted Trump during a news conference, leading the president to demand he not “be rude.”.” Trump informed Acosta that he would not be taking a question from him because “you are fake news.” “We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before,” Trump said at the 2016 event, going on to further name-drop the Times and Washington Post. The ruling, along with Trump’s own lawsuit against the Ted Turner-founded network over its use of the term “Big Lie” to describe his claims about the 2020 election, leaves open the possibility that the court could revisit Sullivan, though such a shift appears unlikely in the near term. Fox News Digital reached out to CNN for comment on the dissent.
Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’
The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., that alleged the lawmaker committed sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations. The probe was spurred by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who earlier this year charged that there were “very disturbing” allegations against a sitting senator in the wake of the scandal-filled downfall of former-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a close friend of Gallego’s. But after a nearly monthlong investigation into the matter, the committee told Gallego in a letter on Monday that there wasn’t evidence to back up Luna’s claims. ‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNNAMED SENATOR UNDER REVIEW IN WAKE OF SCANDALS ROCKING CONGRESS “We are writing to inform you that the Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) dismissed a complaint filed against you by Representative Anna Paulina Luna,” the panel stated. “Specifically, the complaint alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.” “In response to your request for an investigation, the Committee referred these allegations to you and requested additional information on April 17 and May 15, 2026,” the letter continued. “Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.” Gallego said in a statement that the Ethics Committee’s decision “reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.” SENATOR GALLEGO SAYS LONGTIME FRIENDSHIP WITH SWALWELL ‘CLOUDED MY JUDGMENT’ AS RUMORS SWIRLED IN DC “I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families,” Gallego said. “In the meantime, I will continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.” But an apology from Luna is unlikely. The lawmaker shot back on X that the allegations “are not conspiracy theories. You’re a gross example of representation.” SWALWELL FRIEND GALLEGO DEFENDS CAMPAIGN-FUNDED SUPER BOWL, MIAMI TRIPS: ‘GO WHERE THE MONEY IS’ “Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics,” Luna said. “The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” she continued. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.” Luna’s allegations against Gallego came shortly after Swalwell resigned from the House following a bombshell report from The San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-lawmaker allegedly sexually assaulted a former staffer. Gallego moved to quickly put distance between himself and Swalwell and argued that his tight-knit relationship “clouded my judgment,” regarding rumors that swirled about the ex-lawmaker for years in Washington, D.C. Gallego has recently come under scrutiny for a report from Politico that he spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets and childcare. “This is not breaking news,” Gallego told the outlet. “With the rising costs of childcare and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Conservatives revolt after Trump-appointed Barrett joins liberals in ‘shockingly wrong’ mail ballot ruling
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett faced the wrath of conservatives on social media on Monday after she authored the majority opinion ruling in favor of a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted in elections even if they are received after Election Day. The court was split 5-4 on the ruling with Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump, writing the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Barrett’s opinion held that Election Day, in the context of federal law, set a deadline for when voters must make a choice regarding their preferred candidate but said that relevant laws have no standard for when ballots must be received to be considered valid. Barrett was quickly criticized by conservative commentators and politicians. AMY CONEY BARRETT CALLS ROE V WADE ‘FREE-FLOATING’ DECISION THAT JUDGES ‘READ INTO’ CONSTITUTION “A shockingly wrong opinion,” Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt posted on X. “Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted. This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American Act.” “Barrett is the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter,” conservative author Hans Mahncke posted on X. “The difference is that few conservatives expected much from Souter whereas Barrett was supposed to be the future of the Court. The worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for another 40 years.” “Amy Coney Barrett continues to disappoint in far too many high-profile cases,” political commentator Josh Hammer posted on X. “Remember Election Day?” Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh’s office posted on X. “This disastrous SCOTUS decision, authored by Justice Barrett, guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from it — as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.” “Amy Coney Barrett is the worst choice ever among all GOP justices,” retired U.S. Army captain Seth Keshel posted on X. “And that includes Roberts. What a disappointment she is.” REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT “She quotes Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 59, speaks of the Framers’ intent, and repeatedly invokes history as its guide,” constitutional attorney Krisanne Hall posted on X. “But when the historical evidence becomes inconvenient, Barrett quietly sets it aside. Barrett engages in judicial activism disguised as selective originalism.” Jason Snead, executive director of Honest Elections Project, said in a statement that the ruling is “deeply disappointing and misses the mark.” “Federal law is clear: all ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted,” Snead wrote. “The Court missed a major opportunity to reinforce election integrity and instead sides with California-style chaos. As Justice Alito makes clear in his dissent, watching ballots trickle in after Election Day and flip races does nothing but damage public trust in our system of government.” Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner and Senior Legal Fellow in AAF’s Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law, said in a statement that the ruling is a “grave disappointment.” “As Justice Samuel Alito says in his dissent, joined by three other justices, not only is Justice Amy Comey Barrett’s opinion inconsistent with the plain text of those laws and historical practice and precedents, it ‘risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity,’” von Spakovsky wrote. The ruling prompted many to reiterate the importance of the SAVE Act, Trump’s long-sought voter ID and citizenship verification legislation, including Republican Rep. Greg Steube who posted on X, “The Senate filibuster is the only thing standing in the way. Nuke it!” Trump reacted to the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “tremendous loss” and stressing the importance that all voters must show a photo ID and proof of citizenship and that there should be “no mail-in” ballots except for specific exceptions. “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” Trump wrote. “There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump added, “The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses!” Fox News Digital’s Robert Schmad and Anders Hagstrom contributed to this report.
Trump voters say costs are crushing their wallets — but look past president for blame
Supporters attending President Donald Trump’s rally on the National Mall acknowledged feeling the pinch from higher gas prices, but they largely declined to blame Trump — instead pointing to the Iran conflict and lingering frustration with inflation under former President Joe Biden. “My least favorite president ran gas up to about $5 a gallon for no reason, and that was Mr. Biden,” said Billy of North Carolina. Fox News Digital spoke with Americans who gathered on the National Mall Wednesday evening for President Donald Trump’s rally kicking off the “Great American State Fair” celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary, where attendees weighed in on whether they are feeling pain in their pockets as affordability concerns loom over the war with Iran and midterm elections in November. “Affordability has a lot to do with just interest rates that went up the highest in 48 years under President Biden, so it’s going to take some time to get those prices back down to where we were before that,” said James McNair of Maryland. GAS SURGE TIED TO IRAN CONFLICT HITS SWING STATES, TESTING TRUMP’S LOW-PRICE PITCH “I’m not that concerned about the affordability thing. I think that our president is probably the best businessman to ever be president, and things will turn,” added James’ brother, David. “Being in Gen Z, everything’s very expensive now,” William of New York said in summary. Many attendees shared that while they recognize gas prices are high, they attribute the recent spike to the escalating conflict with Iran—a development they continue to support. TRUMP PROMISED LOWER COSTS; THE IRAN CONFLICT NOW THREATENS THAT PLEDGE “I don’t think the prices in general have gotten any worse than when Biden was in the administration,” said Lisa of Maryland. Before the war, the national average price of gasoline was $2.98 per gallon. Prices climbed to a peak of $4.56 per gallon in late May before gradually declining to $3.87 per gallon by the end of June. Lisa and her husband, Matt, both served in the Army and expressed diverging opinions on affordability and Trump’s handling of Iran. PENTAGON ESTIMATES IRAN WAR COST $11.3B IN THE FIRST SIX DAYS IN CLOSED-DOOR CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: REPORT “Prices have definitely gone up and they do get my attention,” said Matt of Maryland. Matt shared that his drill sergeants were warning him of being deployed to Iran back in 1985. “Here we are today in 2026, still dealing with this problem.” “If we’re worried about gas prices, we’re going to be worrying again and again and again until we get a handle on regimes that just don’t share our values,” said Matt. BLACKROCK CEO LARRY FINK ARGUES US-IRAN CONFLICT WON’T DERAIL ECONOMY AS GAS PRICES SURGE Norma Holm of Indiana also said she believed Iran would eventually have to be dealt with and that it was better to address the issue head-on than leave it for the next generation. “We are taking it for the team with the gas prices and everything else, but things are stabling, and President Trump, don’t underestimate him.” Washington and Tehran agreed to halt military strikes in the region with delegations scheduled to meet June 30 in Doha, Qatar for talks. Other attendees are hoping that a resolution to the Iran conflict will lead to lower prices. “As the Iran war comes to an end and the peace deal hopefully gels, we’ll see. I think gas prices are already coming down, not tremendously, not where we would like to see, but those things take time,” said James of New York.
Explained: How Lisa Cook’s three home loans became central to Trump’s fight over her Federal Reserve seat
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s legal battle against President Donald Trump centered, in part, on a trio of mortgages she obtained before joining the nation’s central bank. The loans, tied to properties in Michigan, Georgia and Massachusetts, drew scrutiny regarding whether Cook misrepresented how the homes would be used — as primary residences or otherwise. Trump cited those allegations in his effort to boot her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, arguing they constituted cause for her removal. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled 5-4 that Cook can remain on as a Fed governor while her separate lawsuit challenging her firing proceeds. WHO IS LISA COOK? THE FED GOVERNOR AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S SUPREME COURT FIGHT Cook challenged Trump’s attempt to oust her in federal court, arguing that the move was unlawful and threatened the Federal Reserve‘s independence. Her lawsuit, filed Aug. 28, did not address allegations that she listed two homes as a primary residence on mortgage documents. The allegations originated with Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee who oversees the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Pulte, who is now acting Director of National Intelligence, linked Cook to the trio of properties in referrals sent to the Justice Department, which later confirmed it had opened a criminal investigation into allegations of mortgage application fraud. The mortgages cited in the Justice Department probe were issued in 2021, before former President Joe Biden nominated Cook to the Federal Reserve Board. At issue were the preferential terms that come with primary-residence loans, which lenders typically view as lower risk than mortgages for vacation homes or rental properties. Cook disclosed all three mortgages in a financial filing with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in June 2025, listing them alongside her income, retirement accounts and investments. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OPENS CRIMINAL PROBE INTO FED’S LISA COOK The filing also showed that Cook earned more than $50,000 a year in rental income from her Cambridge, Massachusetts, condominium. Pulte alleged in his DOJ referral that Cook represented the Cambridge condominium as a second home rather than an investment property, despite reporting rental income from the unit. Cook bought the condo in 2002 when she was a professor at Harvard University. For this property, she obtained a 15-year loan for $361,000 at a rate of 2.5% in April 2021. Two months later, Cook secured a mortgage for a three-bedroom home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The 15-year loan for $203,000 at a 2.87% rate through the University of Michigan Credit Union covered the 1,800-square-foot property. At the time, she taught economics and international relations at Michigan State University, roughly an hour’s drive away. She also obtained a $540,000, 30-year mortgage for a luxury condo above the Four Seasons Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. The loan, issued by the Bank Fund Staff Federal Credit Union, carried a 3.25% interest rate. A RARE FILING IN THE LISA COOK–TRUMP CASE COULD SWAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES In that loan agreement, Cook “affirmed that this property would serve as her primary residence within 60 days of the execution of the mortgage and would serve as her primary residence for a full year,” according to Pulte’s referral letter to the Justice Department. Cook has not publicly explained why both the Michigan and Georgia properties were designated as her primary residence. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, denied the allegations in a Sept. 2 filing, writing that Cook “did not ever commit mortgage fraud.”
Wife of Louis Farrakhan dead at 90
Khadijah Farrakhan, the wife of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, died at the age of 90. The two had been married for 72 years. “The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan with deep sadness yet with profound gratitude to Allah informs you that his beloved wife of 72 years, the First Lady of the Nation of Islam, Mother Khadijah has returned to Allah (may Allah be pleased),” a Saturday statement by The Executive Council of the Nation of Islam from Student Minister Ishmael R. Muhammad said. WHAT IS THE NATION OF ISLAM? “We thank Allah for the precious life of a loving wife, mother, a faithful devoted follower of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad. Mother Khadijah will forever be cherished and remembered. May Allah give His unequaled comfort to the family as we mourn this tremendous loss and lift the family in our prayers and thoughts,” the statement continued. “Allah, there is no God but He, He gives life and to Him is our eventual return. Funeral (Janazah) services will be sent as soon as it’s available,” the statement concluded. Farrakhan, who survives his wife, is 93. WHO IS LOUIS FARRAKHAN? WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE CONTROVERSIAL NATION OF ISLAM LEADER Born Betsy Ross, Khadijah Farrakhan married her husband, then named Louis Walcott, in Boston on Sept. 12, 1953. DEM CANDIDATE CAUGHT ON CAMERA APPLAUDING NOTORIOUS ANTISEMITE’S VIOLENT RHETORIC: ‘YOU BREAK HIS NECK’ The couple had nine children — sons Louis Farrakhan Jr. and Joshua Farrakhan passed away in 2018 and 2023 respectively. The Associated Press contributed to this report .
Who is Lisa Cook? The central bank governor at the heart of the Supreme Court’s Trump-Fed showdown
Lisa Cook’s ascension to the Federal Reserve was historic from the start. Appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, she became the first black woman to serve as a governor on the Fed board — a seven-member panel that sets national interest rates and oversees the banking system. Now, she stands at the center of another historic moment, as the Supreme Court ruled Monday against President Donald Trump’s effort to fire her, preserving long-standing protections around the central bank’s independence. TRUMP VS THE FEDERAL RESERVE: HOW THE CLASH REACHED UNCHARTED TERRITORY Cook’s legal fight traces back to late August, when Trump said he was firing her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the seven-member body that helps set monetary policy and oversee the U.S. banking system. He alleged she misrepresented information tied to a trio of mortgages she obtained before joining the central bank. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. She sued Trump in federal court in Washington, D.C., to block her removal from the nation’s most powerful central bank. On Sept. 9, a district court judge barred Trump from firing her while the case proceeds, a decision later upheld by a federal appeals court. A RARE FILING IN THE LISA COOK–TRUMP CASE COULD SWAY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Before joining the Fed board, the Oxford alumna and UC Berkeley-trained economist built a career in academia, including faculty roles at Harvard University and Michigan State University. A graduate of Spelman College, Cook has been described by American economist Barry Eichengreen as “part economist and historian,” with command of several languages, including French, Russian, Spanish and Wolof — a widely spoken language in Senegal. Cook has also held senior roles in government, serving as a senior economist on then-President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2011 to 2012. Before that, she served as a senior adviser on finance and development in the Treasury Department’s Office of International Affairs. She joined the Fed board in May 2022 and was reappointed in September 2023 for a term that runs through January 2038.
Jeffries’ socialism dilemma: New York victories expose Democratic Party divide
The man looks tired. Veteran observers of Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries know at a glance when the fellow isn’t catching his Zs. Some politicians bark gruffly when they are under pressure. Others become wildly frenetic. Some pick fights. Others go quiet, and retreat. Jeffries gets puffy. It has been one of those tells that longtime Empire State and Washington, D.C. hands have noticed for years. When the Brooklyn Democrat appears on morning television looking a little baggy, a tad swollen around the eyes; when he speaks in his trademark measured cadence but stumbles over the elucidation; when he presents the unmistakable glaze of someone who has squeezed three hours of sleep into what should have been a seven-hour night, it usually means he spent the evening on the phone. HAKEEM JEFFRIES CONFRONTED ON ‘YOU’RE NEXT’ CHANTS FOLLOWING NY DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST VICTORIES Counting votes. Putting out fires. Trying to solve a problem. Since Tuesday, the problem has been coming from inside his own party. Not Donald Trump. Not Republicans. Not the economy. Not the spending bill. The Democratic Party. More specifically, the Democratic Socialists of America inside the Democratic Party. For much of the last week, Jeffries has found himself staring transfixed at perhaps the most difficult political challenge of his career — immobilized not because he does not know what he thinks, but because he knows exactly what he thinks. He believes Democrats need to look mainstream to win swing districts. He believes affordability is a stronger message than ideology. He believes most Americans don’t want a political revolution. And he surely believes that Republicans — from President Donald Trump on down — cannot wait to compel every rival candidate to answer for the most controversial voices inside the Democratic Party. That has always been the danger of ideological movements. They rarely stay quaintly confined to the neighborhoods where they first emerge. They spread. They redefine brands. They force everyone wearing the same jersey to bear responsibility for the teammates they did not recruit. This week, such a menace landed squarely on Jeffries’ desk. The source of the headache was New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s stunning Democratic victory last November now has staged a second, hugely consequential act, as three candidates backed by Mamdani — Brad Landler, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier — won congressional primaries. Valdez and Chevalier are both members of the Democratic Socialists of America. The victories are significant for reasons that resonate far beyond New York. For years, the Democratic establishment has comforted itself with the belief that support for democratic socialism was limited to a handful of safe districts represented by colorful personalities who generated cable-news segments but exercised limited influence over the broader direction of the party. Tuesday suggested something different. Democratic socialists did not merely sustain their corner of the party with fringe support, they expanded it — and expanded it in Jeffries’ own backyard. It is difficult to overstate the implications of such a predicament for the Democratic leader. Jeffries is not Bernie Sanders, nor is he Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rather, Jeffries has spent years carefully cultivating an image as a disciplined institutionalist — a modern Democratic leader capable of appealing to progressives without frightening suburban moderates. His personal politics always have been considerably closer to the political center than to those of the raucous activists in his coalition. He is, by temperament and instinct, a coalition builder. Coalition builders do not enjoy civil wars. It is a major hurdle for Jeffries to explain and finesse the ballooning faction without detonating a timebomb inside his party. Almost immediately after Tuesday’s results, reporters and anchors began asking Jeffries his opinion of the new nominees — not whether he supported them, but whether he supported what they unequivocally endorsed. It was an impossible line of questioning precisely because everyone already knew the answer. Jeffries does not believe America should abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prisons or the police force. He has never argued for dismantling capitalism, nor has he embraced many of the wider ideological positions associated with the Democratic Socialists of America. So, he did what experienced political leaders often do when trapped between principle and practicality. He tried to change the subject. In interview after interview, Jeffries gently, nebulously, acknowledged that he did not share every position or previous statement made by the nominees. He steered the conversation toward affordability, alternate Democratic victories and the overarching national map. It was classic Hakeem Jeffries: polite, measured, disciplined and careful. But politics rarely allows careful people to remain above the fray forever, and, before long, one of the nominees, Chevalier, became a national story. Opposition researchers — and increasingly, reporters — began to dredge up years of Chevalier’s social-media posts and public statements, staunchly expressed and clearly defined. She did indeed call for abolishing police and prisons, and argued for eliminating borders and ICE. She harshly, profanely, criticized Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, and decried America as “a f—— disgrace.” Her many posts involving race, white women, and interracial relationships spread rapidly, first across conservative media and then on MSNOW and CNN. For many, it does not matter that she has deleted and repudiated some of the posts. One Democratic Party stalwart told me ruefully, “Chevalier is our David Duke. She is poisoning the possibility of a Democratic majority.” AOC ISSUES WARNING TO HER FELLOW DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENTS IN THE WAKE OF SOCIALISTS WINNING BIG IN NYC But another Democrat familiar with the House caucus, who has been aligned with the progressive wing, offered me an opposing view. “The reality is that the energy of the party in primaries is anti-genocide, anti-billionaire and for Medicare-for-all. Many centrists and House Democratic members are having a hard time coming to terms with this. But that’s where voters primary are. They are unfortunately jamming Jeffries unnecessarily instead of letting him embrace the progressive wing.” Whether Chevalier’s comments are viewed as youthful activism, sincere ideological conviction or political malpractice, they guarantee one thing: the questions