Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.
Indiana News
Around the Corn (Indiana Briefs)
ICC: Prosecutors pan impeachment proposal as political stunt, release own legislative agenda
A bipartisan group of the state’s elected prosecutors are pushing back against a constitutional amendment proposed by Rep. Andrew Ireland (R-Indpls) - probably the second most punchable twerp in the statehouse - that would allow impeachment of prosecutors and judges for what he calls “negligence,” arguing it would politicize charging decisions and undermine prosecutorial independence. They say existing constitutional, ethical, and electoral accountability mechanisms already address misconduct, and accuse Ireland of using “rogue prosecutor” rhetoric for political gain rather than public safety. As an alternative, prosecutors unveiled their own legislative agenda focused on tougher sentencing laws, expanded pretrial detention, limits on sentence reductions, and increased funding to address chronic understaffing.
Question: If prosecutors already face elections, ethics boards, and judicial review, what problem is this impeachment proposal actually trying to solve — and who benefits politically from pretending prosecutors are ‘rogue’?
ICC: Appeals court upholds privacy of abortion reports
A three judge panel unanimously ruled that individual abortion reports filed by doctors must remain confidential, upholding a lower court order blocking the state health department from releasing them. The judges said the reports are protected medical records even without patient names, citing privacy risks in the context of the state’s near-total abortion ban. The decision preserves patient and physician confidentiality for now, though the case could still be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Question: This ruling treats abortion records like any other medical record — so why does the state keep treating the underlying procedure as different from any other medical procedure?
Nibbling around the edges:
Indiana Citizen: Senators Say ‘Sweet Spot’ Still Elusive on Bill to Curb Medical Debt Garnishments
Lawmakers reopened debate over how to curb hospital medical debt practices, acknowledging they still haven’t found a workable compromise after two years of effort. Senate Bill 85 would require payment plans, limit wage garnishment for low-income patients, and bar liens on primary homes, but hospitals and collection agencies (boo fuckin’ hoo) warned it could disrupt existing systems. With Hoosiers collectively carrying $2.2B worth of medical debt, the committee agreed the problem is urgent but left the bill unresolved heading into the 2026 session.
ICC: Ratepayer advocates recommend energy bill ‘relief plan’
Indiana Conservation Voters and Citizens Action Coalition, a pair of consumer advocacy organizations, released a sweeping reform plan aimed at lowering energy bills, with proposals focused on low-income discounts, a summer shutoff ban, and tighter regulation of monopoly utilities. The plan also calls for expanded oversight of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, limits on utility profits and political spending, and changes to how utilities pass costs on to customers. Utilities acknowledged affordability concerns but pushed back, arguing prices are below national averages and existing assistance programs already help struggling Hoosiers.
Question: If hospitals and utilities are so essential that the state has to keep stepping in to stop them from wrecking people’s lives, why are we still treating them like profit-making businesses at all?
South Bend Tribune: County Council rejects data center.
St. Joseph County councilors voted 7–2 to reject a proposal to rezone more than 1000 acres of farmland near New Carlisle for a $12 billion data center after 10 hours of public testimony and debate, the decision coming shortly after 4am. Despite promises of jobs and investment, opponents raised concerns about water use, infrastructure strain, and the loss of the area’s rural character, ultimately swaying a bipartisan majority. Supporters said the project could return in the future, but for now the county put the brakes on another major Big Tech expansion. The area is already home to a massive Amazon data center project that has been under construction for a year on another 1200 acres site.
Question: Is opposition to data centers a political risk for Democrats with unions — or does it just expose how little public investment we’ve offered as an alternative to private megaprojects?
IDS: IU lecturer returns to class under supervision (20M)
IU School of Social Work lecturer Jessica Adams is back in the classroom after having been removed for six weeks under Indiana’s “intellectual diversity” law, but says her classes are now being monitored and that she was found guilty of violating the statute. Faculty and student groups protested, arguing the law chills academic freedom and turns classroom content into a political litmus test. The case has become a flashpoint in a broader fight over free speech, state oversight, and ideological control in Indiana’s public universities.
Question: If you’re forced to be monitored for thought crime in the classroom, does academic freedom still exist?
Farm Bailout
NPR: Trump administration announces $12 billion in one-time payments to farmers
The Trump administration just announced $12B in one-time payments to farmers to cushion the blow from its own tariff hikes — especially for corn and soybean growers. It’s essentially a bailout for damage caused by Trump’s trade policy, paid for through the same USDA fund he used during his first term, and framed as a “bridge” until his economic agenda supposedly starts working. The subtext is obvious: tariffs are hurting rural America right now, input costs are up, crop prices are down, and the White House is scrambling to keep farmers — one of Trump’s most loyal constituencies — from feeling the consequences before the next election.
WANE: Indiana farmers split on federal aid as trade pressures and high costs squeeze margins
Here in Indiana, farmers say the $12 billion aid package is a temporary band-aid, not a sustainable solution. Corn and soybean growers describe being squeezed by years of rising seed, fertilizer, equipment, and land costs coupled with stagnant crop prices, and trade wars slowing exports — especially for soybeans, more than half of which are sold overseas. The message from the fields is regretful: the money helps farms survive this season, but they don’t want a handout. Long-term stability depends on predictable trade, stronger domestic demand, and markets that actually let farmers turn a profit.
Questions
If tariffs are a policy choice and the farm bailout is the fix for the damage those tariffs cause, isn’t this just the government socializing the losses of its own economic failure?
Indiana farmers in particular say this money helps, but only temporarily — until the next bailout. So aren’t we just building the “culture of dependence” that conservatives always cry about?
If farming has depended on public support since the 1930’s – price supports, subsidies, disaster aid – why is socialism only treated as a dirty word when it applies to workers instead of landowners?
Senate Says No to Trump 9-0 Maps!
What played out in Indiana this week was a rare, messy, and revealing crack in the machinery of Trump-era Republican control. It began quietly, with Senate Republicans refusing to say out loud [ICC] whether they would go along with a mid-decade congressional gerrymander clearly demanded by Donald Trump, even as a committee dutifully advanced [ICC] the bill. By Tuesday, outside pressure ramped up on both sides: Fair Maps Indiana announced a PAC [ICC] to punish Republicans who complied, while Trump himself escalated threats to primary anyone who didn’t [Politico]. By Wednesday, the focus shifted to the mechanics of power — the anonymous map drawers [IndyStar], the consultants, the backroom operators — underscoring how nakedly political the process had become. Thursday was the rupture: the Indiana Senate, in a stunning rebuke, rejected Trump’s map outright [Politico], driven not by sudden democratic awakening but by personal history, institutional resentment, and a sense among some senators that they were being ordered, not persuaded.
The Republicans who voted NO [CNN] justified their decision in human, relational, and institutional terms. Their language was grounded in lived experience: Jean Leising talked about her grandson being targeted at school; Mike Bohacek spoke as a father of a child with Down Syndrome reacting to Trump’s use of the R-word; Greg Walker and Sue Glick described swatting threats and intimidation; Greg Goode cited town halls, community cohesion, and fear of political violence spilling into Indiana. Even when they rejected Trump, they framed their resistance conservatively — emphasizing precedent, conscience, restraint, and the idea that power should not be exercised through bullying or fear. Their rhetoric was defensive, not expansive: stop this, don’t escalate, don’t reward threats, don’t import national toxicity into Indiana.
By contrast, the Republicans who voted YES — like Liz Brown [Newsmax] and Chris Garten [Townhall] for example — made a fundamentally different argument on the Senate floor. They did not center voters, families, or community harm. They centered power. Their speeches treated elections as hazards to be neutralized, demographic change as a threat, and partisan advantage as a justification unto itself. Where the NO voters spoke about intimidation as disqualifying, the YES voters spoke as if coercion was normal and necessary. Where the NO voters rejected Trump’s pressure as improper, the YES voters framed obedience to Trump’s national project as a duty. That’s the “mask off” moment: not merely supporting gerrymandering, but openly articulating an authoritarian logic in which democratic processes exist to be managed, dissent is illegitimate, and permanent control is the goal.
What happens the day after the vote [ICC] makes clear that Trump’s redistricting push was never really a policy disagreement — it was a loyalty test. The language immediately shifted to retaliation: threats of primary challenges, warnings about federal funding drying up, and claims that Indiana had somehow declared war on the White House. Heritage Action’s suggestion that roads wouldn’t be paved and Guard bases would close crossed a line from hardball politics into something closer to collective punishment. Lieutenant Governor and attention-whore Micah Beckwith grabbed the spotlight with what looked like an act of stochastic terrorism, accusing senators of having “chosen dishonor,” [Indystar] effectively declaring civil war inside his own caucus, while sharing an image of the 21 GOP dissenters that eerily resembled a WANTED poster.
Yet all that pressure ironically began claiming scalps not from the legislators targeted by pedo-adjacent pastor, but from the pro-gerrymandering camp when Liz Brown resigned [Indystar] from Senate leadership, a tacit admission that the pro-map faction lost not just the vote but its standing inside the chamber. Also Friday, Governor Braun announced the appointment of Huntington Senator. Andy Zay to the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, [ICC] removing a hardline Trump sycophant from the Senate entirely, creating a vacancy – and caucus vote in his district that serves as a temperature check for who controls the Republican Party in Indiana. Will attempted governance (and make no mistake, these Republican lawmakers are still wrong on nearly every other issue) or aggressive grievance carry the GOP torch?
Questions
Is Indiana showing the limits of Trumpism – have we passed ‘peak Trump?’
What does this loss mean for the direction of the Indiana GOP going forward? Did the “moderates” stuff the Nazis into a locker or does Beckwith’s terrorism turn up the temperature further?
For all the celebration this week, Indiana is still operating under a 7–2 gerrymandered map — are we mistaking a tactical win for real reform? A symbolic win for progress?
Immigration
So let’s change topics, but go back to our good friend Liz Brown — the Fort Wayne state senator who, just a moment ago, was delivering fire-breathing floor speeches in defense of Trump’s redistricting scheme. When it comes to immigration, though, Brown suddenly isn’t extreme enough for Attorney General Todd Rokita or US Senator Jim Banks. Brown’s introduced a bill [ICC] that would expand cooperation with federal immigration enforcement but deliberately limit who holds that power inside state government. Rokita and Banks want something far more centralized — enforcement authority concentrated in the AG’s office, with the ability to shut down businesses outright. What’s playing out here isn’t a good-faith debate over policy. It’s another internal GOP power struggle over who gets to be the face, the muscle, and the megaphone of Indiana’s immigration crackdown — and who gets to turn that authority into political leverage heading into 2026.
But the political quickly turns personal once it leaves the Statehouse. Here in Bloomington, an Afghan man who entered the US legally, applied for asylum, received work authorization, and followed every rule was pulled over [WFIU] after an English class and quietly disappeared into ICE detention. His family still doesn’t know why. He isn’t accused of a crime. He works at IU. He and his wife are expecting a baby. Now, his case is pending and he’s due to appear before a judge Wednesday — but with this administration you never know. And heading back up to Indianapolis, dozens of immigrants who did make it to the end of the process were stopped anyway. Thirty-eight people were denied citizenship at a naturalization ceremony [Mirror Indy] after being fully vetted, tested, and approved — because a last-minute federal memo labeled their countries of origin “high risk.” No hearing. No explanation. Just a closed door at the finish line. This is what the system looks like on the ground: not targeted enforcement, but broad suspicion and - again - collective punishment.
And that’s the system Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem showed up to defend in Congress [AP]. The arrests, the detentions, the deportations to third countries, the sudden rule changes, the mass suspicion aimed at entire nationalities — all of it, she said, keeps her up at night for the opposite reason critics cite. Not because innocent people like Amir are being swept up, but because there might still be some she hasn’t caught yet. Ah yes, “gotta catch ’em all.” I guess Noem can add Pokemon trainer to her dress-up rotation. The one sliver of good news is that the courts, at least for now, are still pushing back at the margins. A federal judge barred ICE from immediately re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia [WaPo] – a Maryland resident who became a national flashpoint after being wrongfully deported, brought back to the US, detained on manufactured charges, and generally jerked around in a wanton display of cruelty – after ruling his detention unlawful. This is a reminder that while the guardrails of democracy are a mangled wreck, they occasionally still keep things on the road .
Questions
How do you square the rhetoric about ‘criminal immigrants’ with cases like Amir — someone who followed every rule and still vanished into detention?
The concept of collective punishment has come up several times already this morning. In an armed conflict, collective punishment is a war crime (looking at you, Israel). Isn’t this group punishment by the Trump administration a crime against humanity by 1000 papercuts?
With this Abrego Garcia case, and a few others, we’re seeing the courts (barely) hold. How much trust do you put in the judicial system at this point?
US/World News
US Briefs
SCOTUS
AP: Supreme Court seems likely to back Trump’s power to fire independent agency board members
SCOTUS signaled support for presidential authority to remove leaders of independent federal boards and commissions, a move that could significantly expand executive power by making it easier for a president to fire officials without cause. The decision reflects a conservative majority’s broader trend toward strengthening executive control over government agencies.
Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued the immunity case for Trump, called on the court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor - a unanimous 90-year-old decision that has limited when presidents can fire agencies’ board members, saying the decision enabled a “headless fourth branch” of government, the “administrative state” that business interests have been trying to undermine for decades.
SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court difficult to read in case on campaign finance limitations
The Court also heard arguments on whether federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates violate the First Amendment, with several conservative justices signaling sympathy to the challengers - though they offered few clear clues about the outcome. With Justices Gorsuch and Barrett largely silent and others split over corruption risks versus free-speech concerns, the case appears difficult to predict, though a ruling could further weaken campaign-finance limits when a decision comes this summer.
Question: We keep asking whether the courts are the last guardrail — but if the Supreme Court itself is clearing the path for more executive power and more money in politics, do the upstream guardrails even matter?
Epstein:
AP: House Democrats release photos of Trump, Clinton and Andrew from Epstein’s estate
Democrats in the House of Representatives released a batch of photos from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate showing figures including Donald Trump, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew - as well as right-wing political operative Steve Bannon, billionaires Richard Branson and Bill Gates, filmmaker Woody Allen, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and law professor Alan Dershowitz - as part of a broader effort to pressure the Trump administration for transparency as they are forced to release the long-awaited Epstein files. Democrats - and an unusual mix of Republican allies - demand justice for Epstein’s victims, whileTrump allies accuse them of cherry-picking images and insist there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the president.
Question: With everything else out there (and the theoretical upcoming release of massive troves of files) do these new pictures move the needle at all, or are we just treading water?
Tech
Politico: Trump signs AI order to shut down state laws
The president signed an executive order directing the federal government to aggressively challenge state AI regulations, aiming to clear the way for a single, industry-friendly national approach after Congress failed to pass legislation doing so. The order relies on the theory that federal regulations preempt state law and that the states are unconstitutionally regulating interstate commerce. State officials and critics from across the political spectrum warn it could face serious court challenges.
NYT: Trump’s Nvidia Chip Deal Reverses Decades of Technology Restrictions, Sparking Bipartisan Concern
President Trump reversed long-standing US export-control policy by allowing Nvidia to sell its powerful H200 AI chip to China in exchange for a 25% cut of the revenue, prioritizing short-term economic gain and industry lobbying over national security concerns. Bipartisan critics warn the move risks accelerating China’s AI and military capabilities, undermining allied export controls, and effectively putting America’s remaining technological edge up for sale.
National Review: Trump’s Ominous Decision to Sell Advanced Chips to China
The conservative outlet argues the decision dangerously undercuts US national security for short-term financial gain. The piece warns the move could accelerate China’s “totalitarian surveillance” capabilities, erode America’s AI advantage, and ultimately help Beijing replicate US technology while sidelining Nvidia itself.
CNBC: Trump ‘sells out’ US national security with Nvidia chip sales to China, Sen. Warren says
Meanwhile, liberal Senator Elizabeth Warren accused the administration of prioritizing corporate access and money over security concerns, while Nvidia defended the deal as limited, licensed, and necessary to keep US firms competitive against foreign rivals
Question: If artificial intelligence is as economically and militarily consequential as everyone claims, shouldn’t we treat it like a public utility or a strategic asset — even if that means national policy, public ownership, or state control — and if so, how do we say that without pretending what Trump is doing here is the right way?
Tuesday Special Elections
Albuquerque Journal: Mayor Keller wins third consecutive term in runoff election
Incumbent Tim Keller secured a third straight term in a runoff, defeating Republican challenger Darren White 58-42% after a six-way general failed to give any one candidate a majority. Keller becomes the first mayor in the city’s history elected to three consecutive terms.
Georgia Recorder: Dems flip northeast Georgia state House seat, pulling off special election upset
Democrats notched another sign of momentum in Georgia by flipping State House District 121, where Eric Gisler narrowly defeated Republican Dutch Guest IV, by a little over a point in a gerrymandered Athens-area seat. Gisler, who had lost badly in the district just a year earlier, credited a stronger ground game and a campaign focused on affordability, health care access, and cost-of-living pressures that appealed beyond the Democratic base. In a second special election in heavily Republican House District 23, Democrat Scott Sanders advanced to a Jan. 6 runoff against Republican Bill Fincher, highlighting the vulnerabilities of GOP gerrymandering overreach.
Palm Beach Post: Democrat Rob Long wins special election for Florida’s House District 90
Long won a special election to represent Florida House District 90, capturing just over 63% of the vote in a three-way race to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Rep. Joe Casello. Long, the vice mayor of Delray Beach and Casello ally, easily defeated Republican Maria Zack and independent Karen Yeh in the heavily Democratic district, but the margin marked a seven point improvement for Dems.
NBC News: Democrat wins Miami mayor’s race for the first time in almost 30 years
Eileen Higgins’ 59–41 victory in Miami’s mayoral race marks a dramatic reversal in a city Democrats have not controlled since 1997 and represents roughly a 25–30 point swing from recent GOP wins. Although the race is formally nonpartisan, Republicans had dominated the office since 2008, making Higgins’ win a clear political break. The contest became nationalized in its final weeks, Trump endorsing Republican Emilio González.
The outcome reflects a convergence of local economic pressure and national political backlash. Higgins centered her campaign on affordability, housing, infrastructure, and government competence - issues that resonated in a city facing severe cost-of-living strains. At the same time, Trump’s immigration and tariff policies proved politically toxic in a diverse, immigrant-heavy city.
Questions:
We’ve now seen Democrats outperform in virtually every election since Trump’s second inauguration, across wildly different regions. Is this the early signal of a broader political realignment, or just proof that Republicans can lose the popular mood repeatedly while remaining protected by maps, calendar advantages, and structural rigging?
Can they maintain this momentum for another year?
If they do, what will they do with that power? Where is the unifying, well-articulated message?
US Seizes Venezuelan Oil Tanker
NYT: What to Know About Trump’s Seizure of an Oil Tanker Near Venezuela
The US government escalated its pressure campaign against Venezuela this week by seizing an oil tanker in the Caribbean called the Skipper, a vessel carrying Venezuelan crude from the state-owned oil company and long suspected of sanctions evasion tied to Iran. The seizure - carried out by the FBI, DHS, the Coast Guard, and backed by the Pentagon under a federal warrant, was based not on direct links to Nicolas Maduro’s government but on the ship’s history of smuggling Iranian oil, including past deliveries to Syria and China and prior US sanctions for supporting networks connected to Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. US officials say the tanker may have falsified its location data and had falsely claimed to sail under Guyana’s flag, and they have signaled more seizures are likely. While the legal process for confiscating the oil is still unfolding, the move directly targets Venezuela’s most critical revenue stream at a moment when the Trump administration is pairing economic warfare with aggressive military posturing in the region, raising serious legal and humanitarian concerns as it seeks to force Maduro from power without explicit congressional authorization.
BBC: US sanctions six more ships after seizing oil tanker off Venezuela
The US also expanded its sanctions campaign against Venezuela by blacklisting six additional vessels accused of transporting Venezuelan oil and imposed new sanctions on several relatives of President Nicolás Maduro and on businesses it says are tied to what it describes as his illegitimate government.
Slate: Trump’s Venezuelan Oil Tanker Seizure May Not Be What It Seems
The seizure of the tanker looks dramatic in the context of Trump’s escalating rhetoric about overthrowing Maduro, but it is better understood as an extension of an ongoing sanctions-enforcement campaign rather than a sudden break toward war. The vessel had already been sanctioned under the Biden administration, was linked to Iranian oil smuggling, and fits a familiar pattern of “dark fleet” tankers using false flags and spoofed tracking data to evade US restrictions, meaning the operation likely would have occurred regardless of Trump’s regime-change posturing. What is new is how the seizure is being folded into Trump’s broader political narrative: heavy military deployments, vague threats of invasion, and public confusion over the legal fate of the ship and its cargo, including Trump’s offhand remark that “we keep it, I guess.” That ambiguity risks validating Maduro’s claims of “international piracy,” while also undercutting Venezuelan democratic opposition by letting the regime paint dissent as collaboration with US aggression.
Politico: House Passes $900B NDAA, Takes Aim at Caribbean Boat Strikes & Trump’s Commitment to Europe
The House overwhelmingly passed the $901B National Defense Authorization Act this week - which both advances President Trump’s defense agenda and quietly reins in his administration’s most aggressive military actions, including maritime strikes tied to the same Caribbean operations now intersecting with the seizure of this oil tanker. The bill withholds a quarter of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until the Pentagon turns over unedited footage of airstrikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats in Latin America, strikes that lawmakers are investigating amid concerns they may constitute war crimes. While Republican leaders tout the bill’s repeal of Pentagon DEI programs and its alignment with Trump’s priorities, bipartisan provisions also push back against unilateral troop withdrawals from Europe and South Korea and require congressional notification when senior military officials are purged. Taken together, the measure reflects growing unease in Congress with Trump’s expanding use of military force in the hemisphere, even as it heads to the Senate with broad support and is expected to be signed into law.
Questions:
So, is this tanker incident a major escalation or just another example of the US military acting as police of the high seas?
If we can intercept and board this oil tanker, why can’t we interdict these alleged drug-running boats that Hegseth has been bombing?
What do you make of the seeming bipartisan agreement regarding overreach as to the boat strikes as well as US presence in allied countries?
Paramount Attempts Hostile Takeover of Warner Bros.
ABC News: What is a hostile takeover? What to know about Paramount’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery
Paramount has launched a hostile takeover bid for Warner Bros. Discovery just days after Netflix announced a separate deal to acquire major pieces of the company, setting off a high-stakes battle that could reshape the media and streaming landscape. While Netflix struck a management-approved agreement at $27.75 per share that excluded WBD’s cable assets, Paramount is attempting to bypass company leadership entirely with a reported $108 billion tender offer valuing shares at $30 apiece — a massive premium aimed directly at shareholders. The move highlights competing strategies for consolidation in an industry under pressure from streaming economics and subscriber growth, and raises questions about regulatory approval under the Trump administration. With hostile takeovers historically producing mixed results, Paramount’s gambit pits shareholder incentives against existing leadership preferences and could determine who ultimately controls HBO Max, Warner Bros.’ film studio, and other core assets.
Newsweek: What the Ellisons Could Control in a Paramount–Warner Bros Takeover
If Paramount Skydance succeeds in its hostile takeover, control of a vast swath of American entertainment and news would consolidate in the hands of the Ellison family, with CEO David Ellison backed by the financial muscle of his father - Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. The bid would create one of the largest media conglomerates in US history. That prospect has set off alarms among lawmakers and regulators, with figures like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy warning of severe antitrust concerns, political favoritism, and the dangers of concentrating media power amid reported ties to Trump allies and foreign capital.
Guardian: Jared Kushner – and three Arab monarchies – are at the heart of the Paramount-WBD bid
About that foreign capital. While the offer is led by the Ellisons - major Trump allies and the largest private funders of the Israeli military - required filings also reveal that a large share of the equity comes from Jared Kushner’s private equity firm and sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE—countries with deep financial ties to the Trump family. The deal would ultimately require approval from regulators overseen by a Trump administration that the president has already signaled he intends to personally influence.
LA Times: Democratic lawmakers say Paramount bid for Warner raises ‘serious national security concerns’
Lawmakers argue that selling a company that controls CNN, HBO, and a vast portfolio of film, television, and consumer data assets to an entity backed by foreign royal families with close ties to the Trump family risks giving outside governments indirect influence over US media, culture, and sensitive personal information. While Paramount claims the foreign investors have waived governance rights and that the deal does not require review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, Democrats are urging Warner’s board to submit to federal scrutiny anyway, warning that the transaction sits at the intersection of media consolidation, foreign capital, and presidential favoritism — with profound implications for press independence and national security.
Irish Star: CBS branded ‘the new Fox News’ as viewers say ‘good riddance’ after Erika Kirk interview
CBS aired a town hall on Saturday night featuring Erika Kirk, the widow of conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk, moderated by newly appointed CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, which sparked backlash from viewers who saw the broadcast as CBS drifting toward Fox News–style right-wing programming. The event focused on Kirk’s death, conspiracy theories surrounding it, and criticism of his opponents, but the larger controversy centered on Weiss’s role and influence following CBS’s acquisition of her outlet, The Free Press, as part of Paramount’s merger with Skydance Media, controlled by David Ellison. Critics tied the town hall to a broader pattern: CBS settling a lawsuit with Trump, canceling The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and elevating figures closely aligned with conservative politics, fueling concerns that corporate consolidation and billionaire ownership are reshaping mainstream news into ideologically driven, politically compliant media.
Questions:
“Is this CBS town hall a preview of Trump-era state media — not Fox screaming, but soft white supremacy laundered through a trusted brand? What kinda RPMs are Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite pulling while spinning in their graves?
At what point does media consolidation stop being a business story and start being a democratic one — especially when the owners have direct financial and political ties to the president?
Even if the Paramount takeover fails and Netflix “wins,” aren’t we still just choosing between two private monopolies deciding what the public gets to see — and calling that a victory?
ACA Subsidies Set to Expire:
NBC News: Senate rejects ACA funding and a Republican alternative with premiums set to spike
The Republican-controlled Senate voted Thursday to block both parties’ competing health care bills, sharply increasing the likelihood that enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies enacted in 2021 will expire at year’s end and trigger steep premium hikes for roughly 22 million Americans as soon as next month. Democrats’ bill to extend the subsidies for three years fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance despite limited GOP crossover support, while Republicans’ alternative — letting subsidies lapse in favor of expanded health savings accounts and cheaper, higher-deductible plans — also failed. The deadlock effectively punts the issue into the 2026 midterms, with Democrats framing the looming premium spike as a political weapon and Republicans divided between those content to let the subsidies expire and those worried about voter backlash. With no consensus plan, Congress is barreling toward a coverage and affordability cliff just as lawmakers prepare to leave Washington for the holidays.
ABC News: Growing number of House Republicans sign on to effort to force vote on ACA subsidies
A growing revolt among House Republicans is complicating Speaker Mike Johnson’s plans to move a health care package next week, as nearly a dozen GOP lawmakers — many from swing districts — join Democrats in pushing to force a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. These Republicans have signed bipartisan discharge petitions designed to bypass party leadership, signaling deep concern about the political and economic fallout. Johnson has downplayed the effort before later announcing his own plan. The standoff underscores a widening rift inside the GOP, with vulnerable incumbents warning that failure to act on ACA subsidies could become a liability in the midterm elections.
Politico: Inside House Republicans’ new health bill
House Republican leaders are moving toward a floor vote next week on a long-standing conservative health care package pitched as an alternative to extending the Affordable Care Act’s expiring subsidies, bundling together policy ideas the GOP has favored for years. The bill would create new “CHOICE” accounts to let employers steer workers toward individually purchased insurance instead of traditional group plans, restart federal funding for ACA cost-sharing reductions to unwind insurers’ “silver loading” practices, and expand association health plans and stop-loss policies that allow small businesses and employers to self-insure with fewer regulatory constraints. It also includes an overhaul of pharmacy benefit managers, an area of rare bipartisan agreement aimed at increasing transparency around drug pricing. While Republicans argue the package would lower premiums and promote consumer choice without extending Obamacare subsidies, Democrats counter that it weakens marketplace protections and sidesteps the immediate affordability cliff facing millions of Americans.
Questions:
Eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and sided with Republicans to end the long-running government shutdown last month, citing this up-or-down vote on the ACA subsidies as a win. With this failure, do they look foolish now?
If two dozen House Republicans are breaking with leadership to force a vote, does that suggest the party knows this is politically radioactive but can’t agree on how to admit it?
If the ACA subsidies are dead, can Democrats admit that Obamacare was always - and here’s the theme of the show - nibbling around the edges and vulnerable to political brinkmanship? Will they finally realize that Medicare for All is the only viable option?
