Monday, August 17, 2026

MASS DEPORTATION NOW!
The life-altering choices immigrant families are making under Trump’s crackdown

Maria Santana, 
CNN
Sat, August 15, 2026 


Pregnant asylum-seeker Yaoska, 32, comforts her two-year-old son who was not feeling well, inside the Miami-area motel room where she and her children are living after her husband was deported to Nicaragua, on Thursday, Nov. 13, 2025. - Rebecca Blackwell/APMore

A quiet upheaval is unfolding in homes, schools, churches and workplaces across the United States, as families try to prepare for –– or avoid –– an encounter with immigration authorities.

Some have left the United States after decades of building lives here. Others have considered giving up their unborn child for adoption, so the baby could have a better future.

Parents are naming guardians for their children in case they are detained or deported, while others have stopped working, shopping or even leaving home, relying instead on neighbors and churches.

The choices are deeply personal. Some are irreversible.

"I thought about giving my baby up"

Emma Confesor was pregnant with her fourth child when a question she had never imagined began keeping her awake: Would her baby have a better future raised by someone else?

Confesor, 39, emigrated from Puebla, Mexico, more than two decades ago. But uncertainty surrounding President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship led her to consider placing her unborn child up for adoption.

"It didn't seem fair to me that the baby wouldn't have citizenship," Confesor said through tears. "I had considered adoption so the baby could have a better future."

For weeks, the possibility consumed her. She said she struggled to sleep, afraid her child could be denied the future she believed every baby born in the United States should have.

Confesor was not alone.

In an ACLU lawsuit challenging Trump's executive order, another pregnant woman said she became so desperate to ensure her son would be born a US citizen that she asked her doctor whether labor could be induced early so he would arrive before the policy could take effect. Her doctor advised against it.

Then came the decision that changed everything.

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, rejecting the administration's effort to end automatic citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to many noncitizen parents.

For Confesor, the fear that had dominated her pregnancy began to lift.

"I feel relieved," she said. "I kept thinking, 'It's not fair.' I wasn't sleeping well because I was worried this could affect me. Not just me, but so many mothers who are going to have babies here."

Planning for separation

While Confesor feared for her baby's future, other parents were preparing for the possibility that they would not be there to raise their children who were born US citizens.

In Maryland, a Salvadoran mother signed legal papers naming Father Vidal Rivas, the priest at her local church, as temporary guardian of her 7-year-old son if she and her husband were deported.

"It's not easy to sign a document where it feels like you're handing your child over to someone else," she told CNN affiliate Univision through tears.

The uncertainty, she said, had taken a toll.

"I keep thinking and thinking… I feel like my health has suffered because you just don't know," she said. "Honestly, I've stayed in my house, just praying that God's will be done."

She is part of a growing number of immigrant parents making contingency plans in case they are detained or deported.


Undocumented immigrant Andrea, 28, cries while standing with her children inside the Ecuadorian Consulate after learning the emergency passport application for her daughter Jazlyn, 6, would be delayed pending further documentation in Queens, New York on October 8, 2025. - John Moore/Getty ImagesMore

Many families have already been forced into separation. A CNN investigation published last September found more than 100 US citizen children, from newborns to teenagers, had been left without their parents after immigration enforcement actions. Some were taken in by relatives, neighbors or family friends. Others entered foster care.

At St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Hyattsville, Maryland, Rivas has been appointed standby legal guardian for at least 31 children whose parents fear they could be detained or deported

"Many of these parents have no other relatives in the country," Rivas said. "Some want their children to stay here. I would become legally responsible for them so they can continue going to school and have what they need. Other parents hope their children can finish high school before they are sent to reunite with them."

Rivas said he will serve as a guardian for as long as families need him. "It's truly as if they were your own children," he said.
Leaving home before being forced to

For others, departure has become the only choice that still feels like their own.

Abdiel and Adilene Domínguez had built nearly their entire lives in Minnesota. Abdiel arrived from Mexico at six, Adilene as an infant, and both were protected under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which grants certain immigrants brought to the US as children temporary protection from deportation and authorization to work, but no permanent legal status.

They married, raised four children, bought a home and opened a church in Minneapolis.

But as immigration enforcement increased, they told CNN they became afraid to go to stores or send their children to school. Abdiel also said he was told his commercial driver's license would be canceled.

Instead of waiting to see what might happen, they sold their home, vehicles and belongings and left for Mexico.

Seven months later, they were living with Abdiel's mother in Morelos, where the children were struggling with Spanish and enrolling in school, and their parents were trying to adjust to a country that no longer felt familiar.

"I don't know anything about Mexico," Adilene told CNN. "Everything I know is Minnesota. I'm in shock."

The Dominguezes left on their own, without using a federal program. But the pressure they described mirrors a broader Trump administration strategy encouraging immigrants to depart voluntarily.


President Donald Trump signs a bill funding immigration enforcement in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 10. - Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

Project Homecoming, a $915 million initiative, offers free flights and stipends of up to $2,600 to immigrants who leave through the CBP Home app. An internal DHS document reviewed by CNN in March showed nearly 72,000 people had departed through the program; more than half were already in ICE detention when they enrolled.

More than 72,000 immigration court cases also ended in voluntary departure so far in this fiscal year, compared with more than 35,000 the previous year.

The consequences are also reshaping the lives of US citizens in mixed-status families.

In Pittsburgh, CNN followed Julio Mendoza, an undocumented Mexican immigrant who had lived in the United States since he was 11, as he prepared to leave with his American wife, Sasha, and their three US-born children.

Sasha said they feared Julio could be detained one day and simply not come home. Rather than risk that outcome, the entire family chose to move to Mexico together.

"Everything we do, we do together," Julio told CNN.


Living in hiding

For families who stay, the disruption often unfolds quietly, in the routines they begin to abandon.

Across the country, immigrants have stayed home from work, kept children out of school and avoided stores, churches and other places that once anchored daily life.

Jacobita Cortes, a United Methodist pastor in Chicago, said that fear has changed the rhythms of her community. "They're afraid to go to the store, to the supermarket," Cortes told CNN. "Where do our people go? To the supermarkets where you buy your tortillas, your meat; to the church where you go to thank God."


With his bag packed, a Venezuelan man peeks out the window of his apartment looking for any signs of federal agents after hearing reports that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be coming to detain immigrants for deportation in Aurora, Colorado, January 30, 2025. - Kevin Mohatt/Reuters

Some churches, she said, have moved services online, while congregations are helping families who are too afraid to leave home order groceries or arrange school pickups through neighbors and volunteers.

"If someone needs somebody to go do their shopping, they only have to pick up the phone and call," Cortes said. For parents who are afraid, she added, "find someone who can help, a neighbor or someone who can pick up the children from school."

The same pattern has surfaced elsewhere. In Minneapolis and New Orleans, CNN found once-bustling shops and restaurants growing quiet during federal immigration operations as some immigrants avoided work and parents kept children home from school.

In Brooklyn's Little Haiti, normally busy streets and businesses have grown quiet after the Trump administration ended Temporary Protected Status for Haitians.

Community leaders also warned of ripple effects in hospitals, nursing homes and home health care, where many Haitian immigrants work.

For some immigrants, the fear is no longer confined to the possibility of deportation. It is reshaping what it means to live a life in the United States.

CNN's Carolina Peguero, Priscilla Alvarez, Zoe Sottile, Blake Ellis , Melanie Hicken, Anna-Maja Rappard and Kyung Lah contributed to this report

Trump's 2024 grocery photo op now haunts Republicans in the midterms

By Nathan Layne
Sat, August 15, 2026 
AP


FILE PHOTO: Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he attends a press conference at Trump National Golf Club, in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 15, 2024. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo

FILE PHOTO: Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a press conference at Trump National Golf Club, in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 15, 2024. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo

FILE PHOTO: Food products are displayed on a table ahead of a press conference of Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump, at Trump National Golf Club, in Bedminster, New Jersey, U.S., August 15, 2024. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo

By Nathan Layne

BEDMINSTER, New Jersey, Aug 15 (Reuters) - Two years after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump staged a New Jersey press conference flanked by grocery staples to spotlight inflation under Democrats, food prices are still rising despite his pledge to bring them down. The gap between promise and reality now looms as a vulnerability for Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.

Standing between tables piled high with fruit, beef, cereal, milk and other household staples at his Bedminster golf club on August 15, 2024, Trump blamed ‌the Biden administration for sharp increases in groceries. The spectacle, complete with charts showing higher prices, was aimed at undercutting the Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, and highlighted Trump's central promise: he alone could tame inflation and lower the cost of living.

Two years on, higher gasoline ‌and grocery prices are squeezing household budgets and turning the cost of living into the top issue for American voters. Voters now give Democrats a slight edge over Republicans in who they view as better stewards of the economy for the first time in nearly a decade, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

Sheila Carney, a 68-year-old Trump voter, punctuated her frustration with an expletive as she ​unloaded $70 worth of groceries into her car outside a supermarket not far from Trump's Bedminster club. The haul was modest: some meat, detergent and a 12-pack of iced tea.

For Carney, the receipt was evidence that the affordability concerns Trump has sometimes dismissed as a Democratic "hoax" remain a daily burden for many Americans.

"This is real. He can say it's not, but it is," said Carney, a hospital administration assistant who has delayed retirement while helping pay off her son's student loans. "He hasn't brought anything down."

A Reuters analysis of 26 grocery categories tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and featured in Trump's Bedminster display found prices have risen 3.4% in the first 19 months of his second term.

That's less than a quarter of the pace recorded at the same point in former President Joe Biden's term, but still falls short of Trump's pledge to lower prices, as surges in coffee, beef and apples have more than offset declines in items including eggs and butter.

A White ‌House official pointed to data on Wednesday that showed U.S. consumer prices barely increased in July from the ⁠month before as evidence that inflation is under control.

"The July CPI report is further proof that President Trump's long-term agenda is delivering: prescription drug and auto insurance costs continue to fall, real wages are rising, and beef prices have cooled while other household essentials like eggs, poultry, and dairy remain low," the official said.

LACK OF ENTHUSIASM

A registered Republican, Carney said high grocery and gasoline prices due to the Iran war were among the reasons she had grown disillusioned enough to ⁠consider sitting out the midterms, underscoring recent polling suggesting Republicans are less enthusiastic about voting than Democrats.

Carney was one of 17 Republicans and independents Reuters interviewed in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, a battleground that includes Bedminster and where swing voters and turnout could prove decisive. The race pits Republican incumbent Tom Kean against Democrat Rebecca Bennett, who has sought to capitalize on voters' frustration over the cost of living.

More than half of those interviewed said they were either undecided or leaning toward Bennett. While grocery prices weighed heavily on many voters, complaints about Kean more often centered on his months-long disappearance from public view earlier this year, which he later attributed to depression.

Their views on ​the ​economy mirror those of other Trump supporters Reuters has interviewed in recent months who, despite standing by the president, say financial pressures have dampened their enthusiasm for voting in ​November. That ambivalence presents another potential challenge for Republicans and raises the stakes for the party's get-out-the-vote operation.

Francesco Trebbi, ‌a public policy professor at the University of California, Berkeley, recently co-authored research finding that Trump drew stronger support in the 2024 election in counties where inflation outpaced income growth, eroding households' purchasing power.

With real wages rising only marginally and lagging the pace of broader economic growth, Trebbi said it is likely that pattern will reverse in November.

"I expect the same anti-incumbent shift to happen in 2026, this time possibly weakening Republicans," he said, describing grocery shopping as a "psychologically salient" reminder of the squeeze on household finances. "Each time one does it, it is the equivalent of a campaign ad against the incumbent."

TRUMP SUPPORT

To be sure, presidents have limited influence over inflation, which is driven by a range of factors and more directly addressed by the Federal Reserve. And many Republicans appear willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, even as his tariffs and the Iran war have contributed to rising prices.

Bonnie Chandler, 64, plans to vote for Kean, saying she believed some companies were keeping prices elevated to make Trump look bad and that the growing influence of the Democratic Party's progressive faction left her unwilling to consider its candidates.

"I'm going to vote Republican. I'm not a woke person. I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist," ‌she said.

Lauren DeGirolamo, a 34-year-old Trump voter, said issues such as education and border security mattered more to her than grocery prices, which she believes have stabilized under Trump ​following steep increases during the Biden administration.

"I feel grocery prices are pretty much at level with where they were during Biden. I know some of the key things that I ​look for - eggs - have gone down," she said, adding that she intended to vote for Republican candidates in November.

According to BLS data, egg prices ​have fallen nearly 40% under Trump, reflecting a market correction after avian flu-driven shortages triggered a surge that began during Biden's presidency. Eggs are among six of the 26 categories showing falls since 2025, along with butter, bacon, and cooking fats ‌and oils.

Yet most of the items Trump displayed at Bedminster are now pricier, some by a lot. Uncooked ​beef has jumped 19.2%, fresh fish and seafood 8.6%, apples 14%, and coffee nearly ​23%.

HITTING CLOSE TO HOME

A Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded earlier this month found Trump's net approval rating on his handling of the cost of living was at -47%, down from -6% at the start of his term. It is his weakest issue by a wide margin, trailing his ratings on the economy (-35%) and immigration (-16%).

Bennett told Reuters that if elected she would seek to undo Trump's tariffs, rein in the Iran war, and restore food stamp benefits to help families struggling to afford groceries.

The issue hits close to home, said Bennett, a military veteran and married mother ​of two daughters. "This is not an abstract concept to me," she said. "For example, beef is very expensive, so we ‌don't buy beef anymore."

Whether Kean, whose campaign did not respond to requests for comment, can hold on to his seat may depend on voters like Margaret Derkach, who typically votes Republican but is now considering switching her vote if economic conditions don't improve.

"The ​cost of living, as far as homes, apartments and food - the necessities - they have gone up. It's shocking, shocking," said Derkach, 84, after shopping at discount grocer Aldi.

Though she said Trump "inherited a mess" from Biden, Derkach added, "I am undecided right now. I have ​to see."

(Reporting By Nathan Layne in Bedmnister, New Jersey, Dan Burns in New York, and Jason Lange in Washington; editing by Ross Colvin and Alistair Bell)
Trump scores major immigration victory as judge clears way to end TPS protections for thousands of Somalis

Michael Sinkewicz
Sat, August 15, 2026 
FOX NEWS


A side-by-side photo of protesters demonstrating against the Trump administration's immigration policies, and a photo of U.S. President Donald Trump signing executive orders at the White House. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday, May 14, in a case involving birthright citizenship in the U.S. Photos via Getty ImagesMore

A federal judge has cleared the way for the Trump administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Somali nationals living in the United States.See more

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for his administration to terminate temporary legal protections for thousands of Somali nationals living in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston lifted a stay that had prevented the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Somalia's Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation, citing a June Supreme Court ruling that sharply limited judicial review of similar administration actions.

The decision allows the Trump administration to move forward with ending TPS for Somalia, potentially exposing affected migrants who lack another lawful basis to remain in the U.S. to deportation.

A side-by-side photo of protesters demonstrating against the Trump administration's immigration policies, and a photo of U.S. President Donald Trump signing executive orders at the White House. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday, May 14, in a case involving birthright citizenship in the U.S. Photos via Getty ImagesMore

Burroughs, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, had previously blocked the termination from taking effect in a lawsuit brought by four Somali nationals and two advocacy groups, including African Communities Together.

The Trump administration announced in January that it planned to terminate Somalia's TPS designation, with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arguing that conditions in the country had improved enough to end the humanitarian protections.

The Supreme Court ruled in June in Mullin v. Doe that the TPS statute bars judicial review of certain non-constitutional decisions by the administration to terminate TPS designations. The court also found that the plaintiffs' equal protection challenge in that case was unlikely to succeed.

The ruling curtailed lower courts' ability to review Trump administration efforts to terminate TPS designations for nationals of multiple countries.

Plaintiffs challenging the termination of Somalia's designation argued that the administration's decision was motivated by bias against non-White immigrants, pointing to Trump's previous descriptions of Somalis as "garbage" and "low IQ people."

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint raising new constitutional claims and sought emergency relief in another effort to prevent Somalia's TPS protections from ending.

Burroughs issued an administrative stay earlier this month after African Communities Together and other plaintiffs alleged that the administration violated the Fifth Amendment by terminating Somalia's TPS designation based on racial and national-origin discrimination.

In Friday's ruling, Burroughs said the plaintiffs had presented a compelling case but concluded that the Supreme Court's decision constrained her ability to continue blocking the administration's action.

The Department of Homeland Security can move forward with terminating Somalia's Temporary Protected Status designation following a federal judge's ruling.

Burroughs wrote that she was "bound … to view things through the Mullin prism," referring to the Supreme Court case.

"Plaintiffs have made a convincing showing that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is withheld … and the balance of hardships and the public interest also favor Plaintiffs, given that the government has made no showing that maintaining TPS status for the duration of this litigation would impose an undue burden," she wrote.

Despite those findings, Burroughs lifted the stay, allowing the administration's termination of Somalia's TPS designation to move forward.

The Trump administration's decision affects several thousand Somali nationals currently living in the United States.

Sources at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services previously told Fox News Digital that 2,471 Somali nationals in the U.S. currently have TPS, while another 1,383 have pending TPS applications.



Trump's vaccine plan would require millions of individual shots last used decades ago

MATTHEW PERRONE
Updated Thu, August 13, 2026 
AP



A sign about childhood vaccines is pictured as President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting to sign an executive order, Monday, Aug. 10, 2026, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin) (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Public health experts have been quick to condemn an executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at upending childhood vaccinations in the U.S., but the biggest obstacles may be the unprecedented financial and logistical challenges it would impose on parents, health providers and drugmakers.

Monday's announcement by the Republican president calls for separating combination shots — including the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine — into separate injections. Appointments for that and other vaccinations should be spaced out whenever possible, the order states.

To accomplish that, drugmakers would need to revive a slate of individual vaccines that have not been widely used in the U.S. for decades. They would also have to build new manufacturing plants capable of producing millions more vaccine doses than the nation currently uses.

For parents, unbundling the MMR vaccine and spacing out the shots would mean returning to the doctor's office many more times than is currently needed. Those appointments could also strain pediatricians who typically administer the shots, while driving up costs tied to syringes and other medical supplies.

Studies in the U.S. and other countries have shown that combination vaccines increase the likelihood that children will be fully protected from infectious diseases before starting school.

Health experts say there is no scientific basis for changing course.

"We do things that are less convenient and more expensive if there's a good reason to do it," said Dr. Anna Durbin, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "There is no good justification for this. I think it's very bad public health policy."
Trump's plan would require vaccine manufacturing overhaul

Under Trump's executive order, federal officials are instructed to develop within 90 days plans for breaking up the MMR shot and spacing out other vaccines.

But pharmaceutical scientists and former regulators say those changes would likely take years and require drugmakers to spend tens of millions of dollars on new studies and manufacturing facilities.

Currently, there are no individual vaccines in the U.S. for measles, mumps or rubella. All the vaccines approved for those viruses by the Food and Drug Administration are combination shots. That three-in-one approach has been the standard in the U.S. since the 1970s.

Dr. Jesse Goodman, a former FDA vaccine chief, said companies may have to conduct large studies showing their new individual shots produce immune system-boosting reactions in children similar to the current versions. The specifics would depend upon the quality of data from the original standalone vaccines and how it's viewed by FDA regulators.

"The question is how much has changed since then and how comfortable will the FDA and the companies be relying on those comparisons?" said Goodman, who is now a professor at Georgetown University.

Manufacturers may also have to demonstrate the safety of new manufacturing facilities and procedures, given that individual measles shots haven't been widely produced in the U.S. for decades.

Designing, constructing and getting federal sign-off for new vaccine plants typically takes about five years, according to industry experts.

Additionally, Goodman said the FDA would have to review and license each unbundled vaccine separately, a process with no precedent.

"I don't think there's any comparable example of removing hugely effective public health measures that protect babies for no documented scientific reason," he said.

Individual shots for measles and related diseases tend to be used by lower-income countries that can't afford the MMR shot. Merck, GSK and the handful of other companies that supply U.S. childhood vaccines make only the combination shot.

In separate statements, Merck and GSK said they stand by the safety and effectiveness of their products. Neither discussed plans to unbundle their shots.

"To date, there has been no published scientific evidence that shows any benefit in separating the combination MMR vaccine into three individual shots," Merck said in an emailed statement.
Parents would need to make many more trips to the doctor

The MMR shot is currently delivered in two doses — the first at the age of 1 and the second dose after age 4. Splitting up the shot into its three separate components would mean six office visits. Spacing out other shots for pertussis and other infectious diseases could multiply the number of visits many more times.

As the number of visits goes up, parents are more likely to miss appointments or stop making them, according to Durbin.

"It's going to be less convenient, more expensive and you're going to have fewer people getting vaccinated," she said.

For well over a decade, Trump has expressed his view — against medical groups' guidance — that American children receive too many vaccines and that they should be given in smaller doses over a longer period of time. Last year he called on called on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to look at reducing the number. Kennedy and other officials have pointed to smaller countries, such as Denmark, that recommended slightly fewer vaccinations than the U.S.

But breaking up combination shots will result in kids receiving many more individual shots than other comparable nations, Durbin notes.

White House spokesman Kush Desai said the Trump administration's efforts on the MMR vaccine "will give parents more options on timing and frequency for their children, which ultimately will increase vaccination rates for all three diseases."
Vaccine order is not legally binding

Despite the precedent-breaking nature of Trump's order, some experts are skeptical it will result in meaningful changes.

Neither the White House nor the FDA can compel drugmakers to develop and seek approval for new vaccines. And from a business perspective, companies have little incentive to develop individual versions of vaccines they already sell in combination shots.

"They'd be competing against themselves, and there's no reason to do that," said Dr. Paul Offit, a Children's Hospital of Philadelphia vaccine researcher and former government adviser.

While Trump's order calls for more federal research and recommendations, only state governments have the legal authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren. The order simply advises states to consider updating their laws to reflect the Trump administration's approach.

"I think states will ignore this," Offit said. "I think that bottom line is that we don't need to look to Donald Trump for our medical advice."

___

AP videojournalist Mary Conlon in New York contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.




___

Follow the AP's coverage of immunizations at https://apnews.com/hub/immunizations.




 Donald Trump’s Ballroom Is Now a ‘Military Complex’ as Court Deadline Looms


Evolve Editors
Mon, August 17, 2026 
 Reality Tea.


Photo Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images


President Donald Trump rebrands stalled White House ballroom project as a vital national security asset as construction deadline nears.See more

President Donald Trump has rebranded his stalled White House ballroom project as a vital national security asset as a court-imposed construction deadline approaches. The shift in messaging comes as the Supreme Court weighs whether to block an appeals court order that halts ballroom work on August 21.
Donald Trump is tying his White House ballroom to an underground military complex as the Supreme Court weighs a construction fight

Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday that a "desperately needed National Security structure" must be completed. He avoided the word "ballroom" entirely and attacked the preservation group that sued to stop construction, calling them "'TREASONISTS' who revealed Top Military Secrets!"

On Sunday, Donald Trump escalated his campaign with an AI video showing him walking alongside George Washington through the planned ballroom. "Thank you, George, for some of your brilliant ideas on this great Military Complex/Ballroom!" he wrote.

Additionally, leaders of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and other agencies filed statements on Friday supporting the administration's position. They told the Supreme Court that the ballroom would provide secure meeting space for the president, citing threats from Iran and potential drone attacks.

Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll wrote that the ballroom would act as a "sacrificial outer cover" during a drone strike on the White House. He warned that reducing the ballroom's height would "fundamentally compromise mathematically validated blast-attenuation parameters."

So, Donald Trump now argues that the ballroom and underground military complex operate as one unit. "The lower section does not work without the upper section and, likewise, the upper section does not work without the lower," he wrote. This reverses his administration's earlier position that the two parts could stand separately. However, a district court judge and a divided appeals panel both ruled that Trump must stop the construction of the ballroom. They allowed work on the underground military complex to continue.

Judge Richard Leon rejected the urgency argument, writing that the security problem was "of the President's own making." The National Trust for Historic Preservation noted that courts have consistently sided with the ballroom while protecting the bunker (via The Washington Post).

Originally reported by Devanshi Basu for Mandatory.

No one seems to be able to tell Trump ‘no’ — and it’s a huge problem for the GOP

Analysis by Aaron Blake,
 CNN
Fri, August 14, 2026 


Security keeps watch at the main entrance to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2026. - Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Republicans are facing a potentially ugly 2026 midterm election in less than three months. And nobody seems to be able — or perhaps even cares to try — to prevail upon President Donald Trump to mitigate the damage.

Two recent developments are a case in point.

On Friday, Trump appealed to the Supreme Court to be able to continue building his coveted ballroom — which Americans already don't like. And the day before, the president and his handpicked board at the Kennedy Center tried to put Trump's name on the building – again.

Both moves suggest Trump remains preoccupied with his self-gratification and glorification, even though it's increasingly likely to come at the expense of his party.

After a federal judge rejected the previous attempt to rebrand the center as the "Trump Kennedy Center" — forcing the administration to remove Trump's name from the building's façade — the board is now attempting a workaround.

It voted Thursday to add an inscription below the Kennedy Center's sign that says the complex was "Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump." It also voted to rename the area around the center the "President Donald J. Trump Plaza," according to Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex-officio trustee of the board who sued over the initial attempt to add Trump's name to the performing arts center.

(The board is also attempting to close the center for renovations again, after their previous effort was also rejected.)

It remains to be seen whether the moves will pass legal muster.

The federal judge who previously ruled against the administration said that federal law "makes crystal clear" that the center "cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board's unilateral say-so."

As CNN's Sunlen Serfaty notes, the law allows an "inscription on the marble walls in the north or south galleries, the Hall of States, or the Hall of Nations acknowledging a major contribution."

But even if it turns out this is legal, that doesn't make it politically wise. And it epitomizes the political malpractice coming from the administration right now.

Just consider the full scope of what's happening: With just 81 days until a 2026 election in which Republicans seem to be in trouble, the administration is working to slap the name of a living, incumbent president with record-low approval numbers on a prominent cultural institution — for the second time. And crucially, it's doing so even as Americans overwhelmingly say such efforts have gone too far, that Trump and his administration are focused on the wrong things and that he is too preoccupied with his personal gain.

It's as if the administration is trying to cement those ill perceptions.

A CNN poll last month found that 59% of Americans said Trump had "gone too far" in "making changes to cultural institutions such as the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian."

Even 32% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents — i.e. Trump's base — said he had "gone too far" on this.


Also, a Pew Research Center poll in April found just 9% of Americans said it was acceptable to name government buildings after Trump while he is still in office. (Indeed, it's virtually unheard-of to do this for an incumbent president.)


About eight times as many said either that it was not acceptable to name government buildings after Trump at all (50%), or that it would be acceptable but only after Trump's presidency is over (21%).

And only 17% of Republicans said it was acceptable to put Trump's name on government buildings during his presidency, as he's now attempting to do yet again.

Which brings us to the "but." Maybe voters don't really care that much? Maybe the Kennedy Center isn't as important to some of them as it might be to you (the person who chose to read this analysis about it)? Maybe people think this is silly and bad, but that Trump's name will just be pulled off when he's no longer president?

Possibly. But the situation also risks reinforcing a troubling election narrative for Trump and the GOP, which is that the president is way too focused on himself and not the things that are important to voters.

CBS News polling has shown nearly 8 in 10 Americans said the Trump administration has focused "not enough" on lowering prices.

And the CNN poll mentioned above showed 73% said Trump "hasn't paid enough attention to the country's most important problems." That number has steadily risen about 20 points over the course of Trump's second term.

What do Americans think he is focused on, then? Well, himself.

The CNN poll also showed 66% of Americans said Trump did not put the good of the country above his own personal gain; 76% of independents and 30% of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents subscribed to this view.


Construction continues on the East Wing ballroom at the White House on August 10, 2026, in Washington, DC. - Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Focusing on the Kennedy Center — and things like the ballroom, which also appears quite unpopular — in the run-up to the election would seem to be solid evidence that Trump's priorities remain misplaced.

Americans might not care about Trump's pet projects as much as, say, the Iran war and the high gas prices it has caused. And those issues surely remain much bigger liabilities for Trump and the GOP, particularly if the president can't end the war by November 3.

But his obsession with slapping his name on things instead of lowering prices contributes to that narrative, too.

Maury Povich details how infamous “Jenny Jones Show ”killing ‘changed everything’ for daytime TV

Scott Amedure’s 1995 murder by fellow guest Jonathan Schmitz was a flashpoint in the era’s debate over homophobia, the effects of which are still felt today.

Ryan Coleman
Sun, August 16, 2026


Maury Povich and Jenny Jones in 1991
Credit: Courtesy Everett Collection; Paul Natkin/Getty

Key Points

Maury Povich is looking back on a shocking chapter in daytime TV history: the murder of Jenny Jones Show guest Scott Amedure by his friend and fellow guest Jonathan Schmitz.


Amedure, an openly gay man, told Schmitz, who is straight, about his crush on an unaired 1995 episode. Three days later, Schmitz shot Amedure to death at his home.


"That changed everything," Povich explained. "We had 10, 12 pages of legal documents that each guest had to sign," as well as "an attorney that was attached to the show," and more.


Watercooler conversation used to begin and end on daytime TV. From Oprah Winfrey and Geraldo Rivera to Ricki Lake and Maury Povich, issues running the gamut from racism to capital punishment to gun rights were confronted head-on in hotly debated segments that had real-world impacts during the golden age of talk shows.

During a recent, career-spanning conversation with Entertainment Weekly about his new podcast, On Par with Maury Povich, the talk show icon said one infamous episode of a '90s staple had more immediate and enduring consequences than any other.

"Things changed in the talk shows [with] the unfortunate killing of a guest on Jenny Jones," Povich says. "That changed everything. Before that, no guest was ever approached about a subject they didn't know they were going to be asked about."



Both Jones' and Povich's self-titled talk shows premiered in September 1991. They'd ascended to the top of the daytime heap from vastly different places; Jones from stand-up comedy, becoming the first female comic to win Star Search in 1986 and later hitting the road with Jerry Seinfeld as his opening act, and Povich from broadcast news, as an itinerant newsman at local stations and outlets across the country before landing the anchor job at A Current Affair.

But their shows took off in a similar direction. Jones' first season featured episodes about "hot-tempered husbands," children of biracial marriage, and the wives of police officers. Povich's first season, meanwhile, featured episodes about HIV-positive couples, teen boot camps, and paternity drama. Povich and his producers would steer firmly toward more "you are the father" content, and Jones' show upped the tabloid ante in tandem.

Jenny Jones hosting 'The Jenny Jones Show' in 1999
Credit: Everett

In 1995, Jones presided over one of her most controversial episodes to date. "Revealing Same Sex Secret Crush" taped that year on March 6 with an intended run date during May sweeps. The episode shone the spotlight on several openly gay singles who, per the title, revealed their secret crush to their self-described straight friends in front of Jones and her studio audience.

The episode never aired, but in copies of the footage that have been re-uploaded online, Jones can be seen goading Scott Amedure, a 32-year-old gay man, about his crush on his 24-year-old straight friend, Jonathan Schmitz.


Jonathan Schmitz on 'The Jenny Jones Show' in 1995
Credit: Warner Bros; CourtTV

"You think about him? You have fantasies about him?" she asks Amedure, who sits beside Donna Riley, his and Schmitz's mutual friend. Amedure seems coy and nervous, and when Schmitz is brought out onstage and briefed on his friend's secret crush, he acts cool.

"You lied to me," he cheekily tells Amedure, laughing and clapping, thinking it was Riley who harbored the crush.

Privately, Schmitz was furious. Three days after the episode taped, he drove to Amedure's home in Lake Orion, Mich., and killed him with a 12-gauge shotgun.


Scott Amedure on 'The Jenny Jones Show' in 1995
Credit: Warner Bros; CourtTV

"Apparently, it was terribly embarrassing," Povich recalls. "After the show, days after the show, one of the guys was killed. It changed the whole viewing of daytime TV."

Povich says the killing caused the booking and production flow for his series, the uber-popular The Maury Povich Show, to turn on a dime.

"We had 10, 12 pages of legal documents that each guest had to sign. We had to make sure that there were never questions that were going to be asked that they weren't prepared for. And every single show, all of a sudden, had an attorney that was attached to the show," he explains.

Justice moved swiftly on Schmitz. Within a few weeks, he was charged with one count of first-degree premeditated homicide and felony possession of a firearm. The trial commenced that October.

During the trial, Schmitz' legal team utilized two strategies to argue for his innocence. First, they called on Dr. Habib Vaziri to reveal he had diagnosed Schmitz with "major affective disorder," continually citing his volatile swings into depression. Second, they employed what's often termed a "gay panic" defense, alleging that Schmitz's embarrassment over being revealed as the subject of a same-sex crush was so acute that he was moved beyond reasonable control into a homicidal rage.

It didn't hold up. The prosecution played the call Schmitz placed to 911 shortly after shooting Amedure for the jury (per Court TV). An emotional Schmitz could be heard telling the operator that he "just shot this guy because he put me on national TV. He played a very bad f---ing thing on me. He took me on Jenny Jones. I just walked in and f---ing killed him."

Schmitz was found guilty of second-degree murder after a unanimous verdict and sentenced to 25-year minimum sentence in prison. His conviction was overturned on appeal, but he was found guilty again. His sentence was reinstated, and he served time at the Parnall Correctional Facility in Jackson, Mich., until he was paroled Aug. 22, 2017.


Jenny Jones in 1991
Credit: Paul Natkin/Getty

Jones was called to testify at that trial, rebutting the defense's contention that the episode was a glaring example of "ambush television." She also submitted herself to lengthy questioning at a subsequent civil trial, after Amedure's family filed a $25 million wrongful death and negligence suit against The Jenny Jones Show and its parent companies, Telepictures and Warner Bros., in 1995.

That trial commenced in 1999. Jones was grilled during the trial by Geoffrey Fieger, who famously served as the defense attorney for Jack Kevorkian, and a judgment of over $29 million was ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs. Again, the judgment was contested and later overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled that The Jenny Jones Show and its producers "had no duty to anticipate and prevent the act of murder committed by Schmitz."