Democratic Senator Refuses to Endorse Schumer After Shutdown Cave

Senator Mark Kelly offered a meandering nonanswer about struggling Americans rather than state how he truly feels about Senator Chuck Schumer’s flailing leadership following the party’s unity fracturing on the government shutdown.

Kelly appeared on MSNBC on Monday morning after seven Democrats and one independent abruptly folded on the party’s demand for a guaranteed extension of Obamacare subsidies.

“Do you support Chuck Schumer to lead Senate Democrats going forward?” Chris Jansing asked Kelly.

“So Chris, again. We found ourselves in a situation I don’t think the Senate has found itself in before. I think under any president, Democrat or Republican, they’re gonna care about the American people’s health care, and care if they’re gonna be able to put food on the table, and try to bring down costs, not do the opposite,” Kelly said, completely ignoring Jansing’s very direct question. “So when I hear folks say things like that, I understand their frustration. But I also hope they understand that we all need to be on the same team here. And what matters at this point is restoring these tax credits—if we can do it—in December. And we’re gonna work really really hard, and we’re gonna focus on getting the Republican votes necessary to do that.”

He then pivoted to the importance of Democrats winning the midterm elections in 2026 in order to stand up to President Trump. Jansing jumped back in.

“I will note, senator, that given two opportunities you did not voice your unequivocal support for Chuck Schumer, but his job at least for the moment is not over.”

“Chris, I will say: Chuck Schumer and the leadership of the Senate are dealing with an incredibly complex situation where … it’s hard to find a way out,” Kelly replied. “But I am gonna continue to fight for my constituents and the American people to just make life affordable for them.”

“Well that’s exactly what people are calling on the Democrats to do.”

Kelly both talked around the original question and made a claim about securing Republican votes on extending health care subsidies—with zero confirmation that any Republicans will vote “yes,” or if there will be any vote in the House at all.

Donald Trump isn’t content with shaking down U.S. news outlets. Now, he’s set his sights on the BBC.

Trump is threatening the British taxpayer–funded outlet with a $1 billion lawsuit, claiming that it tried to “interfere in the presidential election” by editing one of his January 6 speeches in a broadcast one day before the 2024 vote. After the editing revelations, two of the corporation’s leaders, Director General Tim Davie and news CEO Deborah Turness, resigned Sunday, which Trump bragged about on Truth Social.

“The BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally and deceitfully editing its documentary in order to try and interfere in the Presidential Election,” a spokesperson for Trump’s outside legal team said to NBC News. “President Trump will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in lies, deception, and fake news.”

At issue is an episode of the BBC’s Panorama program, which edited together two sections of Trump’s 2021 speech, including his line to supporters to “fight like hell” but left out a part where he told them to peacefully protest. The story was picked up on by the U.K.’s right-leaning newspaper The Telegraph last week, which fueled a pressure campaign by other British right-wing media.

Trump has already gotten a $16 million settlement with CBS News over edits to an interview with Kamala Harris prior to the 2024 election, as well as an additional $16 million settlement with ABC News over the network’s George Stephanopolous using the phrase “liable for rape” to describe Trump’s E. Jean Carroll case verdict.

Perhaps the president thinks he can extort the BBC like he has extorted those outlets in the U.S. However, this lawsuit will have greater implications for U.S.-U.K. relations, as well as with how the Trump administration deals with international media. Freedom of the press applies to foreign as well as domestic journalists working in the U.S. To Trump, that seems to mean they all have to bow to him.

I’m sorry to say, but no, you’re not going to be getting that $2,000 stimulus check Donald Trump floated over the weekend. 

The president raged on Truth Social Sunday against any “FOOL” who opposed his likely unconstitutional sweeping tariff policy, promising that “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

And on Monday, Trump wrote that the remaining money after the payments to low- and middle-income Americans would “be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT.”  

But Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had already put that rumor to rest during an interview with ABC’s This Week. Just hours after Trump’s initial post, Bessent clarified that the president’s mention of a two-grand payout “could come in lots of forms.”

“It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda,” Bessent said Sunday, listing out the supposedly “substantial” various tax deductions outlined in Trump’s behemoth budget bill that passed in July, and falsely claiming that Social Security would no longer be taxed. 

Crucially, Trump’s tariffs haven’t actually collected enough money to pay for the kind of payout the president promised. The Trump administration has collected more than $220 billion in tariff revenue, but the $2,000 paid to all 163 million Americans who filed their taxes would cost roughly $326 billion, according to CNN. So that would leave -$106 billion to pay off the national debt. Great plan!

Meanwhile, the president’s tariff policy has come under scrutiny by the Supreme Court, which last week greeted arguments in its favor with intense skepticism.

The conservative Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take on a case—brought about by the Republican National Committee—that could potentially render mail-in ballots received after Election Day null and void.

Watson v. Republican National Committee sees the state of Mississippi defending its mail-in ballot law against an attack from the state party, the RNC, and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. A favorable ruling for the RNC that comes before the 2026 midterms could have massive implications on a large swath of voters.

“With rare outliers, the states mandated that ballots must be received by election officials by election day,” the RNC argues in its challenge. “But recently, an increasing number of States—including Mississippi—have deviated from that practice by permitting at least some ballots to be received after election day.”

Fifteen states currently allow at least some mail-in ballots to be counted after Election Day, although multiple swing states—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—require ballots to be in before Election Day ends. Mississippi allows ballots up to five days after Election Day, as long as they were submitted on Election Day.

“Voters make that choice by casting—marking and submitting—their ballots by election day. The election has then occurred, even if election officials do not receive all ballots by that day,” Mississippi state officials wrote in their defense. “Under Mississippi law, voters cast their ballots by election day.”

This anti-mail in ballot push has clearly been influenced by the whims of President Trump.

“ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS,” he claimed on Truth Social this summer. “I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS.”

Trump, who himself has voted by mail before, has railed against mail-in ballots for years, asserting without evidence that they are less trustworthy.

“There is fraud; they found them in creeks, they found them with the name Trump in a wastepaper basket,” he said during a presidential debate with Joe Biden in 2020. “This will be a fraud like you have never seen … They’re being sold and dumped in rivers.”

Now, the court he’s shaped may once again give him exactly what he wants.

It turns out, the government shutdown ended because some senators want to be able to keep campaigning on Obamacare.

Seven Senate Democrats and one independent caved on the government shutdown Sunday, leaving their party empty-handed after a grueling 40-day deadlock with Republicans.

Those senators included  Dick Durbin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, John Fetterman, and Tim Kaine, as well as independent Angus King. All eight lawmakers are either retiring or won’t face another election for several years, making the alleged behind-the-scenes rationale for the crumbling stalemate even more asinine.

More than a dozen House and Senate Democrats expressed anxiety that actually preserving premium subsidies for the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium tax credits through their shutdown demands could strip them of a winning issue in the coming midterms, reported The New York Times. Their secondary anxiety involved the powerful Senate filibuster, fearing that conservatives might actually bow to Donald Trump’s demands to ax the disruptive legislative tool.

“The political logic of the shutdown fight was inverted: If Democrats got the tax credits extended—if they ‘won’—they would be solving a huge electoral problem for Republicans,” reported the Times. “If Republicans successfully allowed the tax credits to expire—if they ‘won’—they would be handing Democrats a cudgel with which to beat them in the elections.”

Without the premium tax credits, health insurance premiums for more than 20 million Americans are expected to double. 

The result, according to policy experts, will be a mass exodus from Obamacare plans altogether, leaving roughly four million Americans uninsured. The spike in uninsured Americans will spur a public health problem that has historically proved to make premiums more expensive for the insured as hospitals look to recoup the lost cash.

Low-income regions of the country, such as Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina, will be particularly hard hit as recipients decide whether they can afford the rising costs. That is, apparently, a potential electoral opportunity, according to congressional Democrats—regardless of how many people will be at risk for physical and financial ruin in the interim.

The message is as simple as it is disastrous: Democrats will do anything to stay in power, even if it means undermining the needs of their constituents.