U.S.

With less than a week until a potentially historic midterm election , the political discourse is being dominated not by war or seismic shifts in technology, but by the Cheesecake Factory . The big picture: Culture wars regularly swarm American political discussions, especially when the jibes are personal. Former President Obama's passing joke over the weekend about Cheesecake Factory decor did just that — by criticizing President Trump 's personal taste and style. "He's got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory," Obama said, poking fun at the president's controversial White House renovations . Zoom in: John Murphy, professor emeritus at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who studies political rhetoric, tells Axios that the first time he heard Obama's comment, he "really did think, 'this is going to go somewhere.'" That's both because of the messenger and the butt of the joke: Obama "can get under Trump's skin like no one else in the world can," he says. Obama knows all too well how seemingly trivial moments can blow up; in 2014, he wore a tan suit instead of a black one to discuss foreign policy, and years later his sartorial choices remain a political talking point. The tan suit has its own Wikipedia page , and still nets pop culture references . State of play: Days after Obama's quip, the news cycle and social media are still serving up the joke, and the White House posted "Lo-fi" beats accompanied by a cartoon image of Trump in front of a Cheesecake Factory. Conservative critics used the jab to paint Obama as elitist. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent , a multimillionaire, criticized Obama outside a Cheesecake Factory, saying he "had a great meal, and I would tell the Martha's Vineyard set to give it a try." Murphy notes that framing comes from a classic red v. blue playbook to paint Democrats as "elitist." "It's a conscious strategy, I think, on the part of conservative media to gin up culture-war arguments," he says. Th

If Democrats gain full control of Congress next week, as many polls and prediction markets suggest they will, private equity could once again find itself in the political crosshairs. The big picture: Private equity has become a rhetorical punching bag for a number of Democratic House and Senate candidates, including in debates and on the stump, as an affordability bête noire. Most of this has related to housing, both single-family and mobile homes, but also has extended to health care. What they're saying: "It's no doubt that housing is way out of control and a big part of that is because private equity has come into Maine," said Troy Jackson in an Oct. 6 debate with Sen. Susan Collins. "I do think we have to go after private equity, make it so that they can't buy these things and charge outrageous prices." Chris Pappas, running for an open Senate seat in New Hampshire, said during a campaign stop at a mobile home community: "We need to... address the housing crisis that we're seeing, including addressing the corporate private equity influence that we're seeing in housing that's making it less affordable and is causing a lot of consternation here at this park." Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) decried PE ownership of residential care facilities during a public event, saying: "Those people know nothing about health care." State of play: Congress passed a bipartisan bill this past summer to restrict PE ownership of single-family homes, with the Treasury Department last week issuing related regulations . The legislation became law despite not being signed by President Trump, who supported it but was in a snit over the Senate not passing his voter identification bill. Zoom in: A Democratic sweep would likely result in Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) taking the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee gavel, which means she'd go from writing strongly worded letters to holding hearings and guiding legislation. "Americans are sick and tired of private equity's playbook of ro

The United Nations is set to vote on a resolution condemning the decades-long U.S. economic embargo on Cuba as President Donald Trump's administration intensifies its campaign to undermine Cuba’s socialist government

Some Democrats are making a play for segments of the "Make America Healthy Again" base, hoping pitches about food safety and environmental health will attract voters disillusioned with the Trump administration's lack of progress on those fronts. Why it matters: Policies around cleaning up the food supply and agricultural practices helped forge a coalition that's credited with helping President Trump win a second term. But disagreements over issues like pesticide use are fueling speculation that MAHA voters may not show up in force to help Republicans in the midterm elections — and may be persuaded to put their faith in Democrats instead. Driving the news: Some Democrats say they're the party better positioned to take on established interests through regulation and are honing messaging with an eye toward the 2028 presidential race. The Center for American Progress, an influential progressive think tank, recently released a proposal focused on healthier foods and reducing harmful chemicals alongside polling showing Democrats are poised to claim the agenda as their own. "I do think the MAHA grassroots movement has raised the salience of some issues where Democrats have an opportunity to align, particularly on chemicals and pesticides," said Topher Spiro, an author of the CAP report. "I think that these are issues that have been percolating for a long time, and that, frankly, Democrats haven't done a great job of prioritizing." "If you're looking at who are the swing voters in this electoral environment, they overlap very highly with voters who care about these issues," added Becca Siegel, chief insights officer at CAP. Though affordability concerns have dominated the midterm elections, some Democratic lawmakers and candidates have already backed legislation or policy agendas that overlap with MAHA themes. Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed last month released a proposal titled "Building a Healthier America" that included calls for banning certain pesticides — a k

Some of the biggest vulnerabilities in election security are lying in plain sight. Why it matters: There's no credible evidence that voting-system vulnerabilities have been exploited to change election results. But researchers have found isolated flaws that threaten ballot secrecy, accurate vote recording and independent verification of results. The big picture: Voter-marked paper ballots and rigorous audits are the gold standard for trustworthy elections, election-security researchers and activists tell Axios. Researchers have challenged unfounded claims that elections were stolen through hacking while also warning against dismissing real vulnerabilities in voting systems. "A vulnerability is not an exploit," Philip Stark, a retired UC Berkeley statistics professor who developed an audit protocol for checking paper ballots, said at a recent conference. "You can leave a key under your doormat, and that doesn't mean someone takes the key and opens your door." Zoom in: Election security experts interviewed by Axios found these vulnerabilities in parts of the U.S.: 1. Paperless voting: Louisiana is the last remaining state to use paperless voting machines statewide on Election Day. Voters press buttons to select their candidates, and the machines record their votes electronically without producing a paper ballot. That leaves no independent record to check whether votes were counted correctly. Most other states retired the machines after researchers exposed their vulnerabilities to hacking and the inability to independently audit their results. Election security expert and computer scientist J. Alex Halderman, of the University of Michigan, called Louisiana "the dinosaur of American elections." Louisiana's secretary of state's office declined an interview request, but in a press release said the state is expected to award a new election equipment contract at the end of the year. 2. Ballot-marking devices (BMDs) let voters select candidates on a touchscreen before printi

The cybersecurity world braced for catastrophe after AI uncovered critical flaws in the web's foundational code , but the anticipated wave of automated attacks has surprisingly struggled to get off the ground. Why it matters: Millions of hacking attempts have yielded few successful attacks, an apparent lucky break due to the degree of difficulty of building attacks on the bugs. The defense work at many companies to address the issue also appears to have helped. The last week has unfolded in ways that remind some researchers of the Y2K phenomenon, a software problem in 1999 where warnings of Armageddon helped rally companies to engineer a solution in time. Driving the news: Security researchers say the PHP vulnerabilities that prompted widespread panic last week have proven unusually difficult to exploit, despite a flood of attempts to develop working attack code. Yet the difficulty of exploiting PHP shouldn't be mistaken for evidence that AI-powered hacking isn't a serious threat, Samantha Lewis, head of threat intelligence at Armadin, told Axios. "We don't have to wait another two years before this happens [again]," she said. "It could be three hours from now that the next one of these launches." Between the lines: The sheer volume of AI-discovered bugs means the next era of cybersecurity will be defined by resilience — how quickly a company can detect an intruder, contain the damage and recover. "This is the worst outlook I've ever had, and it also is the most interesting thing I've ever seen in my life," ExtraHop CEO Greg Clark told Axios. "This stuff actually works, it's going to change everything." Rubrik CEO Bipul Sinha warned that the world is in an "era of cyber tsunami," noting that "it will wash over everybody, nobody will be 100% safe." Zoom in: The shift to building resilience doesn't require throwing out the security playbook. Instead, companies should double down on basic cyber principles, such as using multi-factor authentication, Justin Timothy, thre

Rival satellite companies are jockeying to loosen Elon Musk's grip on battlefield communications after his company's restrictions on Ukraine's Starlink service shook officials in Europe and the U.S. Why it matters: The episode, which temporarily disrupted Ukraine's drone usage, shows how vulnerable a military can be to the whims of a single company or market dominator. State of play: Musk's SpaceX, which is the parent company of Starlink, is by far the world's leader in space-based connectivity with more than 11,000 satellites, per the American Enterprise Institute's data . Eutelsat, a France-based SATCOM firm, is behind them with more than 600 satellites in its OneWeb network. This summer, Starlink announced it hit 12 million customers across more than 160 countries and territories. SpaceX's massive lead has made it difficult for European countries that want to establish independence from the Musk-led company. Driving the news: Now, non-U.S. firms seeking to compete with SpaceX are pitching their services with more urgency. Last week, Finnish firms ICEYE and Nokia announced an agreement with Ukraine's defense ministry to explore "sovereign satellite communications." The duo's initial satellites are "expected to launch in 2028," an ICEYE spokesperson told Axios, adding the need for reliable satellite communications has been "evident for years, especially in Europe." "Modern warfare has proven that reliable communications are a matter of national security," Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in the ICEYE-and-Nokia announcement. "We must all rely on capabilities that we can control." Zoom in: The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Musk ordered the slowdown of Ukraine's Starlink service. Other outlets have said the White House was involved, which President Trump denied. Musk responded on Oct. 24 that Ukraine "violated Starlink terms of service" by using it for offensive drone strikes. That "loophole," he added, was recently "closed." Follow the money

The post How Cleta Mitchell Turned Trump’s “Big Lie” Into a Movement appeared first on ProPublica .

A federal judge has ruled that Republican Bill Essayli is not legally serving as the top U.S. prosecutor in Los Angeles

The United Nations is set to vote on a resolution condemning the decades-long U.S. economic embargo on Cuba as the Trump administration intensifies its campaign to undermine Cuba’s socialist government

The U.S. government is granting visas to Flávio Bolsonaro and his family following his defeat in Brazil's presidential election , a senior Trump administration official tells Axios. Why it matters: The move comes days after Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro , in a closely watched election. The latest: Bolsonaro has arrived in Florida after leaving Brazil despite a court order requiring him to surrender his passports, according to multiple media reports . Driving the news: Following the election , Brazil's Supreme Court ordered Bolsonaro on Monday to surrender his passports and barred him from leaving the country. The order relates to an ongoing investigation into alleged money laundering. Bolsonaro has denied any wrongdoing. Trump administration officials said they would not comment further until the Bolsonaro family is safely in the U.S. The big picture: President Trump and his administration have repeatedly backed the Bolsonaro family, with the president denouncing the prosecution of the elder Bolsonaro as a " witch hunt ." Jair Bolsonaro was convicted last year by Brazil's Supreme Court of plotting a coup to overturn the 2022 election and was sentenced to 27 years in prison , though he remains under house arrest due to health problems. Trump's administration has targeted Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes , who oversaw the prosecution, with visa restrictions and, separately, sanctions that were later lifted. The Trump administration also imposed steep tariffs on Brazilian imports in 2025, escalating tensions between Washington and Brasília. Go deeper: Brazil's election ignites MAGA's midterm warnings Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional information throughout.

TEL AVIV, Israel — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right coalition is running nearly even with Gadi Eisenkot's opposition bloc in Tuesday's historic election — but both are short of a 61-seat majority, according to Israeli exit polls. Why it matters: Political stalemate is the most likely outcome of the election, with Netanyahu weakened but neither side having a clear path to forming a coalition government. Arab parties are poised to win 18 to 19 seats in what would be an unprecedented electoral achievement. While theoretically Eisenkot's bloc could try to swear in a minority government supported by the two Arab parties, that scenario looks unlikely. The numbers: Eisenkot's bloc emerged with a small lead in early exit polls, but Netanyahu's coalition closed the gap as the night wore on. The exit polls show Netanyahu's bloc with 51-52 seats and Eisenkot's bloc with 49-51 seats. Netanyahu's Likud party is projected to win 27 seats versus 21 seats for Eisenkot's Yashar party. State of play: A close outcome could leave the country in a state of limbo, with Netanyahu likely staying on as a caretaker prime minister at the helm of the executive branch and the opposition led by Eisenkot controlling the Knesset. That scenario could last until new elections are held as early as April. The two sides could try to break the deadlock by forming a unity government between Netanyahu and Eisenkot. But such a scenario is also improbable considering that none of the opposition parties will agree to sit in a Netanyahu-led government. What they're saying: Eisenkot claimed victory in a speech after midnight Israeli time. He said if Netanyahu was a "decent leader," he would exit the political stage after the public voted for change. During the speech, Eisenkot alluded to the possibility that the prime minister would launch military action before a new government is seated. "Netanyahu: don't dare use Israel's security for your political needs," Eisenkot said. He emphasized that the

Senate Republicans see Iowa moving their way and Ohio slipping, with pessimism growing over Alaska and Kansas. Why it matters: Even when they squint, top Republicans struggle to see a majority beyond 51 seats, according to half a dozen senior operatives. ✈️ A combination of paid media and Air Force One visits has bolstered GOP confidence that they'll hold South Carolina and Mississippi . But across the map, the outlook looks bleak, with only a few bright spots. Zoom out: Republicans are fighting a two-front war: unprecedented Democratic enthusiasm and undeniable Republican apathy. 🏈 President Trump's strategy is to whip up the MAGA faithful with rallies in the reddest parts of red states. 😱 "The Red Scream is my biggest concern , not the blue wave," said Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican consultant who has worked to help Trump get elected. ‼️ "Republicans and independents are going to be screaming for attention, and many of them, including those who voted for Trump, may show their frustration by not showing up." Zoom in: Texas is starting to look like a late-season football showdown against an SEC rival: The GOP is still in the game, but defeat seems like a real possibility. 🌾 In Kansas, Sen. Roger Marshall (R) has stopped the bleeding, but it's unclear whether there's enough time left to save his seat. 🛥️ Republicans are quietly bullish on Michigan, but they recognize that the demographics have to break heavily in their favor, especially among Black voters. By the numbers: The math hasn't changed, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) sees multiple paths to 51 seats. No one disputes that North Carolina is going to have a Democratic senator. It seems like another lifetime ago that Republicans were talking seriously about flipping Georgia. If just two of the next tier of Ohio, Kansas and Alaska flip, the Senate would be split 50-50 before factoring in other competitive races, like Michigan, Iowa and Maine. 🦞 In Maine, Republicans and Democrats a

Senate leaders could be guessing who will control the chamber well into November, thanks to a slew of tight races and state-specific voting rules. Why it matters: A GOP majority would ease the pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune to move quickly on nominations, while a Democratic majority would give Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer more leverage in the lame-duck session. If the chamber splits 50/50, leaders will have to start negotiating their power-sharing agreement. Zoom in: Four states could leave the majority in limbo. Alaska: Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) is trying to fend off former Rep. Mary Peltola (D). Alaska election results have taken weeks to finalize because of the vast state's transportation challenges, mail ballots and ranked-choice tabulation. The Trump Justice Department is preemptively trying to block results from being finalized if Sullivan narrowly loses. Maine's ranked-choice voting could lengthen the vote tallying if neither Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) nor Democratic nominee Troy Jackson gets more than 50% in the first round. Kansas' three-day grace period for mail-in ballots could delay results in the race between Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). It is far closer than expected. In Texas, a dragged-out recount could be coming. A candidate can request one if the margin is less than 10% of the winner's vote total — which is likely to happen between state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and state Rep. James Talarico (D). The candidate who requests it has to pay. The clock: Congress currently plans to leave for the holidays on Dec. 18. But if Republicans lose both the House and Senate , Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) wants senators to stay in town through the holidays (yes, Thanksgiving and Christmas) to work on a massive GOP reconciliation package they can pass without Democratic support. The big picture: Congress has a long to-do list either way, including funding the government past Dec. 11, passing emergency

The Justice Department failed to secure an indictment against Cassidy Hutchinson , a former White House aide who testified about President Trump's actions on Jan. 6, multiple media outlets reported Tuesday. Why it matters: The grand jury's refusal to indict Hutchinson is another blow to the DOJ in its ongoing effort to prosecute President Trump's perceived political enemies . The latest: A Justice Department lawyer told a magistrate judge Tuesday that a grand jury could not agree on an indictment, according to the Washington Post. The lawyer, whom the Post identified as Neville S. Hedley, the division's acting senior litigation counsel, did not say who the indictment referenced, but multiple sources told the Post and other outlets that it relates to Hutchinson. Catch up quick: Hutchinson's 2022 testimony before Congress revealed several bombshells about the Trump administration's actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021. She testified that she had been told Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent who refused to drive him to the Capitol, that Trump knew some of his supporters were armed, and that former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows had been warned of potential violence on Capitol Hill. She also described Trump's reluctance to call on his supporters to back down as violence unfolded at the Capitol. Zoom out: Republicans have long disputed Hutchinson's testimony, and Secret Service agents she identified as familiar with the events of that day have also said they do not recall some of the incidents she described. Earlier this year, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) sent a criminal referral of Hutchinson to the Justice Department for investigation. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) co-signed it. Criminal referrals are recommendations to the Justice Department and do not necessarily indicate criminal wrongdoing or result in charges. The intrigue: In a break from precedent, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, led by Trump loyalist Harmeet Dhi

President Trump has increasingly singled out Muslim politicians and communities in a bid to rally his base in the final push before election day. Why it matters: Trump's comments could energize some Republican voters in close races, but the strategy could alienate those who see the rhetoric as fearmongering or discriminatory . Driving the news: Trump's Monday appearance at a Michigan rally for GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers included several barbs at Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed's Muslim faith. Trump suggested that El-Sayed posed a security threat, saying, "He would be the only senator that will have to go through a metal detector before he's allowed to go into the Senate." He also called El-Sayed a "jihadist," baselessly claimed the Senate candidate wants to impose sharia law in Michigan, and again accused him of having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed has repeatedly denied ties to extremist groups, and no evidence has emerged linking him to the Muslim Brotherhood. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Between the lines: Republican political consultant Dennis Darnoi told Axios that Trump's rhetoric "doesn't really move the needle one way or the other" in Michigan, where voters have heard similar language before. Darnoi says the strategy could "energize and mobilize" Trump's base. But it could also discourage Jewish and Black Democrats who backed El-Sayed's primary opponent, Haley Stevens, from supporting him in November. "It's not always about winning, but if you can minimize the size of your loss and then go into more Republican areas and gin up your turnout and gin up your margin of victory, then you can win a very close statewide race." By the numbers: About 38% of Michigan likely voters said they would be less likely to support a Muslim candidate, according to a Michigan State University poll released Monday. But 58% said a candidate's being Muslim would make no difference, while 52% said a Trump endorsement would make them less l

President Trump applauded Quebec's new separatist premier Tuesday, continuing to jab at Ottawa despite fragile trade talks that seemed to be gaining momentum. The big picture: Even as Trump's top economic adviser suggested a deal to ease the ongoing trade war is possible, the president has continue to antagonize Canada. The U.S. recently accused Canada of trying to influence American elections through retaliatory tariffs, which Canadian officials have denied. Meanwhile, Trump's continued to antagonize Canada from the campaign trail, saying at a Mississippi stop Monday that it was "charging us massive tariffs" and has "treated us badly." Driving the news: In a brief shoutout Tuesday, the president congratulated Paul St-Pierre Plamondon for his win some three weeks ago. While a recent vote stymied an Albertan separatist push , St-Pierre Plamondon has vowed to hold Quebec's third referendum on independence, though he's said it wouldn't happen until after Trump leaves office. St-Pierre Plamondon's center-left Parti Québécois won 60 of 127 seats, leaving it four short of a majority. It would likely need support from a fellow separatist party to advance a referendum. Prime Minister Mark Carney has emphasized the importance of Canadian unity as the nation faces unprecedented hostility from the American president. Trump shared an Irish Times article that framed the Quebec vote as a "blow to Mark Carney" that could "hamper" his "efforts to maintain national unity against Trump." Zoom out: Trump on Tuesday also congratulated British Columbia's premier-designate, Lorne Doerkson, after his Conservatives swung the province rightward. "Conservatives are moving strong in Canada!" the president wrote . Doerkson, however, has rejected suggestions that he's aligned with the president, similar to St-Pierre Plamondon. Friction point: The U.S. Embassy in Canada last week accused Canadian leaders of trying to influence American politics with reciprocal tariffs on politically important pr

TEL AVIV, Israel — More than three-quarters of Israeli voters cast ballots in Tuesday's historic referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu — the highest level since 1999. Why it matters: This looks like bad news for the incumbent prime minister. Higher voter turnout will likely push several of the parties in his bloc below the electoral threshold — making it harder for the prime minister to reach a 61-seat majority in parliament. An increase in turnout among Arab minority communities could lead to a record number of seats in parliament for them. As in previous elections, Netanyahu has tried to energize his voters by making false claims about "Muslim Brotherhood supporters" of his opponents who are "stealing the elections." State of play: After multiple reports of long lines at many polling stations across the country, the Central Elections Commission issued orders to expedite the voting process and clarified that any voter who arrives at a polling station by 10 pm local time will be allowed to vote. Polls close at 10 pm local time (4pm ET) and exit polls will be published simultaneously by Israel's three TV networks. Driving the news: This is one of the most consequential elections in the country's history — with rival camps warning that victory for the other would put Israel's future in jeopardy. The elections are a referendum on the path Netanyahu has taken the country down over the past four years. It's Israeli voters' first chance to hold Netanyahu accountable for the security failures that led to the Hamas-led October 7 attacks — or to reward him for what he claims were unprecedented military successes in the three years of war since.

Four Senate Democrats are pressing Trump officials to begin restoring billions of dollars in clean energy grants before a key vote on the permitting deal. Why it matters: The path for the bipartisan bill in the lame duck session just got steeper. The big picture: Before the first vote, the senators — Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Ed Markey (Mass.), and Jeff Merkley (Ore.) — want Trump aides to tell the Energy Department to: Begin reinstating grants terminated in October 2025 that have not already been restored with a clear timeline for completion, and allow recipients to draw on the funds under the original terms. Pledge in writing not to cancel grants based on the political hue of a state or its officials. Driving the news: Their new letter to the bill's authors stops shy of an ultimatum, but says it would be "compelling" if these steps occurred. It shows deep misgivings about the bill, arguing it could provide new tools for Trump to favor fossil fuels. "[T]he promise of BAAJA will only succeed if President Trump takes care that it is faithfully executed. The Trump administration's record gives us no basis to assume that he will," the letter states, calling the bill by its acronym. Catch up quick: The letter recounts the scuttling of Biden-era grants, and White House budget chief Russ Vought listing states that did not vote for President Trump in 2024. The Energy Department has acknowledged , in a court filing , that selections of grants for termination in October 2025 were based on politics. Restoring "unlawfully terminated DOE clean energy awards would be a small but important first step" toward fairness in permitting, it states. Friction point: Co-authors Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) want to see more federal approvals of stalled renewables projects. They've called some recent administration moves a step in the right direction. But the new letter shows that other lawmakers have separate asks of the administration. Alr