Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

The American electorate has delivered a political earthquake, handing Democrats control of both chambers of Congress in a midterm election widely interpreted as a rejection of Donald Trump’s leadership. After years of bitter political confrontation, voters have given the opposition party something it desperately needed: the institutional power to investigate the executive branch and demand answers from an administration that has frequently clashed with congressional oversight. Public frustration over rising prices, economic uncertainty and Trump’s conduct helped shape the electoral environment, with one September survey finding that 53% of respondents considered the president corrupt. But winning an election and exercising power effectively are two very different accomplishments.

Democrats now face a difficult decision about how to use their newly acquired authority. They can spend the next two years pursuing ambitious legislation that may never survive a presidential veto, or they can devote substantial attention to investigating government conduct and strengthening Congress’s ability to hold the executive branch accountable. The second option may ultimately prove more consequential than the first.

The legislative obstacles are substantial despite Democratic control of the House and Senate. A congressional majority does not automatically translate into the ability to pass sweeping reforms, particularly when the president belongs to the opposing party. Senate filibuster rules can prevent many bills from advancing without broader bipartisan support, while disagreements among Democrats themselves could complicate efforts to develop a unified agenda. Even legislation that clears both chambers may encounter a presidential veto, requiring a two-thirds majority in each chamber to override it. That leaves Democratic leaders facing a familiar Washington dilemma: they have won the right to govern, but not necessarily the votes required to enact their preferred policies. Congressional investigations offer a different opportunity.

Unlike major legislative reforms, oversight does not always require presidential cooperation or Senate supermajorities. Committees can hold hearings, request records, issue subpoenas and examine how federal agencies are exercising their authority. Used responsibly, those powers can produce meaningful accountability even when the legislative process remains gridlocked.

Subscribe now

The strongest argument for renewed oversight is not simply that Democrats now have the opportunity to investigate Trump. It is that Congress has spent years struggling to enforce its constitutional role as a check on presidential power. During Trump’s first impeachment, lawmakers investigated allegations that he had withheld military assistance to Ukraine while pressing Ukrainian officials to announce investigations involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The House gathered testimony from numerous witnesses, but several senior administration figures resisted appearing before congressional investigators. Trump asserted executive privilege and other protections to block testimony, forcing lawmakers to decide whether to pursue lengthy legal battles or proceed with the evidence already available. Congressional leaders largely chose the faster route, believing that extended court proceedings could derail the impeachment process. The result was an investigation that reached important conclusions but left major questions unanswered. Congress demonstrated that it could impeach a president, but it struggled to establish that the president’s closest advisers could be compelled to testify.

That problem became particularly visible in the dispute involving former White House counsel Don McGahn. Congressional efforts to secure his testimony became entangled in litigation that lasted approximately two years, with a negotiated appearance arriving long after the political moment had passed. The episode illustrated a weakness in congressional oversight: a president can sometimes delay compliance long enough to reduce the practical value of the information being sought. When investigations concern officials who control access to documents and witnesses, delay can become an effective political strategy even if Congress eventually obtains some of the evidence. The first Trump impeachment also included an obstruction-of-Congress charge, creating an uncomfortable contradiction. Lawmakers were attempting to investigate alleged obstruction while facing additional resistance to the investigation itself. That experience offers an important lesson for the new Democratic majority. Issuing subpoenas may generate headlines, but the real measure of congressional authority is whether those subpoenas can be enforced when powerful officials refuse to cooperate.

Subscribe now

The second Trump impeachment, following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, exposed similar limitations. Although the House impeached Trump for incitement of insurrection, the Senate trial proceeded without calling witnesses after senators reversed an initial decision to permit testimony. That choice shortened the proceedings but also eliminated an opportunity to question people with direct knowledge of the events surrounding the attack. Testimony from senior officials could have clarified conversations, decisions and actions that remained disputed. It might also have contributed to the broader public record and subsequent legal investigations. Instead, the process became another example of Congress choosing speed over a more exhaustive examination of the evidence. Trump was acquitted in both impeachment trials, and the Senate never reached the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal. Those outcomes underscore the political limitations of impeachment, but they do not eliminate its investigative value. A proceeding can fail to remove an official while still uncovering important facts about government conduct.

The newly elected Congress therefore faces a strategic question: should Democrats pursue a third impeachment of Trump, investigate members of his administration first, or concentrate on broader oversight without immediately invoking impeachment? Each approach carries advantages and risks. A presidential impeachment would attract enormous public attention and could provide a formal framework for examining alleged misconduct, but conviction would remain highly unlikely without substantial Republican support. Investigating cabinet officials might offer a more focused starting point, particularly where specific actions, documents and witnesses can be identified. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has already filed articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, demonstrating that concerns about executive officials do not necessarily follow a strict party line. Starting with cabinet-level investigations could allow Congress to examine individual decisions and departmental practices before considering broader proceedings. However, impeachment should not become a shortcut around the need for credible evidence. The constitutional process carries significant consequences and should be grounded in identifiable misconduct rather than the simple desire to punish political opponents.

Another challenge involves the Supreme Court’s interpretation of congressional investigative authority. In the 2020 case involving congressional subpoenas for Trump’s financial records, the Court emphasized the need to balance legislative oversight against separation-of-powers concerns. The decision established that Congress cannot automatically obtain a president’s personal information simply by asserting a broad investigative interest. Courts must consider whether requests serve legitimate legislative purposes and whether they impose unnecessary burdens on the presidency. That framework complicates investigations involving a sitting president, particularly when the White House argues that subpoenas are politically motivated or constitutionally excessive. A formal impeachment inquiry may provide Congress with additional grounds for seeking relevant information, although it does not guarantee that courts will enforce every demand. The practical lesson is that investigators must prepare carefully, articulate the legal basis for their requests and anticipate resistance. A successful oversight strategy requires patient legal work, not merely dramatic hearings and accusations delivered for television cameras.

Subscribe now

There is also a compelling case for Congress to examine its own conduct while investigating the executive branch. Strengthening oversight powers without improving congressional ethics could create opportunities for future majorities to misuse those same powers against political opponents. Lawmakers should consider stricter conflict-of-interest rules, greater financial transparency and clearer standards governing investigative procedures. Congressional committees should be expected to distinguish legitimate inquiries from partisan fishing expeditions, regardless of which party controls the chamber. Oversight is most credible when investigators apply consistent standards and acknowledge evidence that challenges their preferred conclusions. Democrats have an opportunity to demonstrate that accountability means more than replacing Republican leadership with Democratic leadership. If they demand transparency from the White House while tolerating ethical problems within their own ranks, they risk weakening the very principles they claim to defend. Restoring public confidence requires institutions that can investigate misconduct fairly, including misconduct committed by their own members.

The political risks are equally significant. Voters who supported Democrats because of inflation, healthcare costs or dissatisfaction with the economy may not welcome a congressional agenda dominated entirely by investigations. Republicans will almost certainly characterize aggressive oversight as political revenge, particularly if Democrats move quickly toward another impeachment attempt. The administration may resist subpoenas, challenge committee authority in court and portray the proceedings as an effort to overturn the political consequences of the previous presidential election. Democrats will therefore need to explain why particular investigations matter to ordinary Americans. Questions about government spending, federal contracts, conflicts of interest, misuse of public resources and the conduct of senior officials can have direct consequences for taxpayers and public services. Oversight becomes more persuasive when it produces evidence, identifies concrete failures and recommends practical reforms. The goal should be to establish what happened and how to prevent abuses, not simply to generate the next confrontation between Congress and the White House.

Ultimately, the Democratic victory creates an opportunity to redefine the relationship between Congress and the presidency, but that opportunity will be wasted if lawmakers confuse political theater with institutional reform. A third impeachment might become appropriate if an investigation uncovers conduct that warrants it, yet impeachment alone should not be mistaken for a complete accountability strategy. The more durable achievement would be establishing that congressional subpoenas carry meaningful consequences, senior officials cannot evade legitimate questions indefinitely, and executive agencies must provide lawful explanations for their decisions. Democrats will also need to pursue legislative priorities and address the economic concerns that helped bring voters to the polls. Those responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. Congress can investigate the administration while working on the issues that affect Americans every day. The real test of the new majority will not be how many hearings it schedules or how often it invokes Trump’s name. It will be whether the institution emerges with stronger oversight procedures, a more complete public record and a renewed capacity to hold any administration accountable. Winning Congress was the opening act. Proving that Congress can exercise its constitutional responsibilities is the much harder performance.

Subscribe now

✍️

The ballots have spoken.
The gavels have changed.

The questions are waiting.
The records remain.

Power must answer.
The law must be heard.

Accountability takes more
Than a strongly worded word.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Democrats’ reported victories in both chambers of Congress give them expanded authority to investigate the Trump administration, hold public hearings and pursue subpoenas. However, Senate procedural rules and the president’s veto power will continue to complicate major legislative reforms.

• Trump’s first two impeachments demonstrated the difficulties Congress faces when senior executive officials resist testimony or document requests. A renewed oversight strategy would require stronger legal preparation, sustained subpoena enforcement and careful consideration of whether impeachment inquiries are justified by the evidence.

• The new Congress has an opportunity to strengthen its oversight authority while improving its own ethical standards. Lasting accountability will depend less on political confrontation than on credible investigations, enforceable procedures and rules that apply consistently to future administrations of either party.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

JD Vance Says the Iran War Cost Republicans

Vice President JD Vance said today that the Iran war played a significant role in the Republican Party’s losses. Trump has also acknowledged that the conflict affected the election, though he insists his decisions were justified. Voters were already dealing with concerns about energy prices and the broader cost of living, making an expensive overseas conflict a difficult issue for Republicans to separate from domestic economic frustration.

Democrats Take Both the House and Senate

Democrats won control of both chambers of Congress, ending the Republican trifecta in Washington and dramatically changing the balance of power for the final two years of Trump’s presidency. The new Congress will give Democrats control over committees, hearings and subpoenas while making Trump’s legislative agenda considerably harder to advance. The White House still retains substantial executive authority, however, and Trump can veto legislation that reaches his desk.

Texas Delivers One of the Biggest Political Shocks of the Night

Texas produced a remarkable Democratic sweep, with James Talarico winning the U.S. Senate race and Gina Hinojosa capturing the governor’s office. Democrats also won control of the Texas House, giving the party unified state-government control for the first time in decades. The results represent a dramatic reversal in a state that has been one of the Republican Party’s most important political strongholds.

Democrats Break Through Deep Inside Republican Territory

The Democratic gains extended well beyond the traditional battleground states. The party captured Senate contests in places including Texas, South Carolina, Ohio and Kansas, while former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper also won a Senate seat. Some House districts that Trump carried comfortably in 2024 also moved sharply toward Democrats, demonstrating just how broad the shift was.

Trump Says He Will Accept the Midterm Results

Trump told The New York Times that he is prepared to accept the election results, even after Republicans suffered major losses across the country. He also acknowledged that the Iran war hurt Republicans politically, although he defended his decision to pursue the conflict. The comments matter because attention had already been focused on whether disputes over close races might continue beyond Election Day.

Republicans Turn on Each Other After the Losses

The Republican blame game began almost immediately. House Republicans are openly debating whether party leaders, campaign strategists, Trump’s policies or the candidates themselves bear responsibility for the scale of the defeats. Trump’s personal involvement is also under scrutiny because several Senate candidates he backed lost races, including contests in states Republicans had expected to hold.

Abdul El-Sayed Makes History in Michigan

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan and will become the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Senate. His victory came after an unusually contentious campaign that included attacks from Trump and a remarkable split among Michigan Democrats after Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Rogers. El-Sayed’s win adds another historic milestone to an election already filled with significant political firsts.

Democrats Make Huge Gains in State Governments Too

The Democratic wave wasn’t limited to Washington. Democrats took control of the Texas House, flipped both legislative chambers in Wisconsin and expanded their power across numerous state governments. They also won governorships in Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and Texas, leaving the party positioned to hold at least 28 governorships next year. It represents one of the largest single-election shifts in state-level political power in years.

A Few Senate Races Are Still Too Close to Call

Despite the broader Democratic victory, several races remain unresolved. Democrat Scott Colom and Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith are separated by an extremely small number of votes in Mississippi, while Alaska’s Mary Peltola holds a narrow lead over Republican Senator Dan Sullivan with ballots still outstanding. Those contests no longer determine which party controls the Senate, but they will determine the eventual size of the Democratic majority.

Cost of Living Appears to Have Been the Election’s Defining Issue

For all the attention devoted to immigration, cultural issues and political personalities, economic frustration appears to have played an enormous role in yesterday’s vote. Reuters reported that nearly nine in ten voters considered the cost of living an important factor, while roughly two-thirds blamed Trump for high prices. The Iran war and tariffs became intertwined with those concerns, giving voters a way to connect foreign and economic policy directly to their household finances.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Democrats Won The Control Of The Congress!!!

Lawyer Up, Republicunts!!!!!!

Subscribe now

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Donald Trump has delivered one of the most unexpected foreign policy announcements of his presidency, declaring that the United States will end nearly $4 billion in annual military assistance to Israel by the end of 2026. The announcement came on Tuesday morning, November 3, just as Americans began casting their ballots in the midterm elections. During a telephone interview, Trump argued that Israel no longer needed the financial assistance and suggested that the longstanding arrangement would be replaced by conventional weapons sales. The declaration represents a potentially significant change in one of Washington’s most established military partnerships, although the administration has not yet provided a detailed implementation plan.

What makes the timing particularly remarkable is that Trump openly connected the decision to criticism from political opponents, including Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. After years of treating support for Israel as a cornerstone of American foreign policy, the president has suddenly discovered that billions of dollars in military assistance might not be necessary after all. The discovery, conveniently enough, arrived on Election Day.

Trump’s explanation was unusually revealing because he did not frame the decision solely as a strategic reassessment of Israel’s military capabilities or America’s national security interests. Instead, he complained that continued assistance had become a political liability, particularly when progressive candidates criticized the administration for spending billions abroad. He specifically singled out El-Sayed, dismissing him as a political extremist while acknowledging that the aid had become an unfavorable talking point. That admission raises an obvious question about what actually motivated the announcement. If Israel genuinely no longer requires American military grants, the administration should be able to explain the assessment through defense planning, budgetary analysis and diplomatic negotiations. If the decision is being accelerated because voters dislike the spending, then the timing becomes an important part of the story. Foreign policy decisions can legitimately respond to public opinion, but major military commitments deserve more explanation than the political inconvenience of defending them during a campaign.

Subscribe now

The financial relationship between Washington and Israel is substantial. In 2025, Israel received approximately $3.8 billion in American military assistance, primarily through foreign military financing grants that support purchases of U.S.-manufactured defense equipment. Those funds have helped finance major weapons systems, including advanced F-35 fighter aircraft, while additional assistance has supported joint missile defense programs. The arrangement has long benefited Israel’s military capabilities while also directing considerable spending toward American defense manufacturers. Ending grant-based assistance would therefore affect more than the Israeli government’s budget. It could alter procurement schedules, defense industry contracts and the structure of military cooperation between the two countries. Trump has suggested that Israel would continue purchasing American weapons rather than receiving them through aid, but that distinction requires careful examination. Replacing grants with sales changes who pays for the equipment; it does not necessarily mean that military cooperation or American weapons transfers will end.

According to Trump, the proposal originated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who allegedly approached him about reducing military assistance because Israel no longer needed the money. Netanyahu had previously discussed gradually phasing out American aid over the next decade, but Trump’s announcement would accelerate that process dramatically. A ten-year transition allows governments to renegotiate defense budgets, adjust procurement arrangements and prepare for changes in military financing. Eliminating nearly $4 billion in annual support within weeks presents a very different challenge. Israeli officials reportedly appeared surprised by the announcement, suggesting that at least some members of the country’s security establishment were not expecting such an abrupt shift. That uncertainty matters because major defense relationships depend on predictable commitments, particularly when weapons acquisitions and missile defense programs involve planning years into the future. Trump’s public declaration may signal a genuine policy change, but until the financial and legal details are clarified, the practical consequences remain uncertain.

The announcement also arrives at an especially difficult moment for Netanyahu, whose political position has weakened following Israel’s recent parliamentary election. His coalition lost its majority in the Knesset, leaving opposition parties exploring whether they can cooperate to replace him. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot seized on Trump’s declaration as evidence of deteriorating relations between Israel and its most important military partner. Eisenkot argued that Israelis and security officials should not be learning about fundamental changes to the relationship through a public interview. Yair Golan, another opposition figure, criticized Netanyahu for failing to preserve or expand American support. Their responses reflect a political dispute over Netanyahu’s leadership, but they also point toward a practical concern: a government facing internal uncertainty may now have to manage a potentially expensive restructuring of its defense arrangements. Whether Netanyahu actually proposed the accelerated cutoff remains a question that would benefit from a clear explanation by both governments.

Subscribe now

For American voters, the announcement touches a growing debate about the priorities of U.S. foreign policy. Years of conflict in Gaza and the resulting humanitarian crisis have intensified criticism of Washington’s military assistance to Israel. Progressive Democrats have questioned whether American taxpayers should continue financing weapons purchases while civilians suffer and domestic needs remain unmet. A September survey found that 48% of Americans believed the United States was providing too much support to Israel, illustrating how public attitudes have shifted. That does not mean Americans share a single view about Israel’s security, the war in Gaza or the appropriate level of U.S. involvement. It does mean that unconditional political support for existing assistance arrangements can no longer be assumed. The debate now extends beyond traditional foreign policy circles into competitive elections, where candidates are increasingly being asked to explain how billions of dollars in overseas commitments align with their domestic priorities.

Michigan’s Senate race offers a particularly striking example of that political shift. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee challenging Republican Mike Rogers, has made American policy toward Israel a prominent issue during his campaign. His criticism of military assistance has resonated with voters concerned about the war in Gaza, federal spending and the broader direction of American foreign policy. If elected, El-Sayed would become the first Muslim member of the United States Senate, making his campaign historically significant beyond the immediate contest. Trump’s decision to mention him directly suggests that the White House recognizes the political impact of these arguments, even while continuing to attack the candidate personally. The irony is difficult to miss: a progressive Democrat criticizes billions in military assistance, and the Republican president announces that the assistance should end, while simultaneously ridiculing the Democrat for raising the issue. Political disagreement apparently becomes more complicated when the opposing side starts making an argument that voters are willing to hear.

Subscribe now

The shift is also notable because skepticism about Israel’s military policies is no longer confined to progressive Democrats. Vice President JD Vance has publicly criticized aspects of Israel’s regional strategy, including its approach to Iran and the use of military force as a response to security threats. His comments suggest that some influential Republicans are increasingly willing to distinguish support for Israel’s security from automatic endorsement of every Israeli military decision. That distinction has become more important as American policymakers confront questions about regional escalation, diplomatic negotiations and the long-term costs of military involvement in the Middle East. Trump himself continues to speak warmly about Netanyahu and has emphasized his personal popularity in Israel. The administration’s emerging position therefore appears to combine continued political support for Israel with a willingness to reconsider the financial structure of that relationship. Whether this represents a durable change in Republican foreign policy or a temporary adjustment to electoral pressures remains to be seen.

There are also important questions about what Trump can actually accomplish through a presidential announcement alone. American military assistance is shaped by congressional appropriations, existing agreements and defense procurement arrangements that cannot necessarily be erased by a single interview. The administration would need to explain which funding streams would end, how existing obligations would be handled and whether Congress would need to approve changes to future assistance. The distinction between military grants, missile defense funding and commercial arms sales is particularly important. Ending direct financing while continuing substantial weapons transfers could reduce taxpayer spending without fundamentally changing Israel’s access to American military technology. Conversely, an abrupt cutoff could create significant complications for ongoing defense programs. Without a formal policy document or detailed budgetary proposal, it is premature to conclude that the entire assistance relationship has already been terminated. For now, Trump has announced an intention, not demonstrated that every component of the existing arrangement has been dismantled.

Ultimately, Trump’s Election Day announcement exposes how dramatically the politics of American support for Israel have changed. A president who has repeatedly emphasized his close relationship with Netanyahu is now arguing that Israel can finance its own weapons purchases, while openly acknowledging that continued military assistance has become politically difficult to defend. The proposal could produce meaningful changes in American spending and Israeli defense planning, but its actual significance will depend on whether the administration follows through and how the transition is structured. It also raises an uncomfortable question about why such a consequential decision was announced during the final hours of a national election rather than through a coordinated policy process. Americans deserve a serious discussion about the costs, benefits and consequences of military assistance, regardless of which party controls Washington. If nearly $4 billion can be removed from the annual commitment because Israel no longer needs it, the public deserves to know how that conclusion was reached and what happens to the money next. For the moment, the clearest message is that even longstanding foreign policy commitments can become negotiable when the political pressure becomes impossible to ignore.

Subscribe now

✍️

Four billion dollars,
Year after year.

The voters started asking,
And suddenly, someone could hear.

The weapons may keep flowing,
The grants may disappear.

But why did the answer change
When Election Day drew near?

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Trump announced on November 3 that the United States would end nearly $4 billion in annual military assistance to Israel by the end of 2026, arguing that Israel no longer needs the funding. He suggested that future weapons purchases would continue through sales rather than American military grants.

• The announcement came as public criticism of U.S. support for Israel has intensified, particularly over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump explicitly referenced Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, whose campaign has challenged American military assistance to Israel, raising questions about the political timing of the decision.

• Israeli opposition leaders criticized Netanyahu following the unexpected announcement, while important questions remain about congressional funding, existing defense agreements and the practical transition from military grants to arms sales. Trump’s statement signals a potentially major policy change, but its implementation has yet to be fully explained.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Americans Vote on Who Controls Congress — and the Direction of Trump’s Presidency

Voters are deciding whether Republicans retain their narrow control of Congress or whether Democrats gain control of one or both chambers. Republicans entered Election Day with a 218–214 House advantage and a 53–47 Senate majority, making relatively small shifts potentially consequential. The results will determine the political environment Trump faces during the final two years of his term.

Justice Department Deploys About 1,000 Election Monitors Nationwide

The Justice Department announced today that roughly 1,000 federal election monitors and observers are being deployed across all 50 states—its largest monitoring operation ever. The move follows weeks of legal fights between the administration and state election officials over suspected noncitizen voting. Some local officials have expressed concerns about the scale of the federal presence, while the Justice Department says its purpose is protecting election integrity.

Judge Blocks Another Trump Administration Effort Targeting Suspected Noncitizen Voters

A federal judge today temporarily barred the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security from sending states lists of voters suspected of being noncitizens and pressing officials to segregate their ballots. The judge raised concerns about the reliability of the government’s data and the possibility that eligible voters could be affected. It is the latest courtroom setback for the administration’s election-related efforts.

Voting Machine Problems Hit a Major New York House Battleground

Voting machines across Westchester County, New York, began rejecting paper ballots today because of a programming problem. Voting itself continued, with affected ballots secured for later tabulation, but the issue could delay results in the closely watched House contest between Republican Mike Lawler and Democrat Cait Conley. Officials have stressed that the ballots will still be counted.

Election Day Is Mostly Running Smoothly Despite Some Local Problems

Despite months of concern about disruption, voting across the country has so far proceeded with relatively few major problems. Flooding forced polling-place changes in Florida and parts of the Southwest, while equipment issues caused delays in New York and at some Florida locations. Election officials say high levels of early voting may also have reduced pressure on polling places today.

Justice Department’s Alaska Investigation Escalates on Election Day

The Justice Department has reportedly notified as many as 20 Democratic operatives that they could be targets of its investigation into Alaska’s Senate election controversy. The investigation centers on the recruitment of an unaffiliated candidate who shares the name Dan Sullivan with the incumbent Republican senator. The escalation comes as Alaska voters are actually casting ballots in a Senate contest that could affect control of the chamber.

Abortion, Voting Rules and Redistricting Are Also on the Ballot

Congress isn’t the only major decision Americans are making today. Voters are considering 145 state ballot measures involving abortion rights, voter identification, redistricting, transgender policies, immigration enforcement and election procedures. Missouri voters are reconsidering abortion protections approved only two years ago, while abortion-rights measures are also before voters in Idaho, Nevada and Virginia.

Supreme Court Hears Major Religious-Liberty Case From Colorado

While Americans vote, the Supreme Court today heard arguments over whether Colorado can exclude Catholic preschools from its publicly funded universal preschool program because their admissions policies conflict with state anti-discrimination requirements. The schools and Trump administration argue that the exclusion violates religious-freedom protections. Colorado says organizations accepting public money must comply with the same nondiscrimination requirements as other participating providers.

New Report Describes Serious Fractures Inside the U.S. Intelligence Community

Current and former officials say intelligence sharing across the federal government and with Congress has deteriorated during Trump’s second term. Reuters reports that tensions between intelligence agencies disrupted assessments, including work related to the Iran conflict, while some congressional intelligence briefings were temporarily withheld. Former officials warn that poor coordination could leave policymakers without a complete picture of national-security threats.

Election Night Could Be a Long One — and Early Results May Be Misleading

Americans may not know tonight which party controls Congress. Historically, the earliest national returns tend to look more Republican because fast-counting states report before millions of ballots from California, Oregon and Washington are included. Several competitive states also count different types of ballots in different orders, meaning early leads can change substantially as the night progresses.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Donald Trump Jr. arrived in Ohio on Monday to help Republicans make their final pitch to voters before the November 3 midterm elections. Instead, he managed to give the audience an unexpected lesson in how not to deliver a political argument. Speaking at a rally outside Toledo, Trump’s eldest son warned that Democrats wanted to expand the Supreme Court and, apparently, make Ohio a state. Yes, Ohio. The same Ohio that joined the United States in 1803, has participated in presidential elections for more than two centuries, and has been sending representatives to Congress since the early days of the republic. Trump Jr. quickly appeared to correct himself, shifting his remarks to Washington, D.C., but the damage to his punchline had already been done. For a family that frequently lectures Americans about patriotism, constitutional principles and the dangers of Democratic leadership, accidentally proposing statehood for an existing state is an especially entertaining campaign detour.

The moment unfolded at Eugene F. Krantz Toledo Express Airport in Swanton, Ohio, where Trump Jr. was participating in a Republican campaign event during Vice President JD Vance’s final push to support GOP candidates. The rally was intended to generate enthusiasm, reinforce familiar Republican talking points and persuade undecided voters to support the party’s candidates. Trump Jr. was warning the audience about what he characterized as Democratic ambitions to reshape American institutions.

His list included expanding the Supreme Court and granting statehood to Washington, D.C., but somewhere between those two arguments, Ohio unexpectedly entered the conversation as a territory awaiting admission to the Union. It was almost certainly a verbal slip rather than an actual belief that Ohio lacks statehood. Nevertheless, the mistake provided an irresistible contrast between the seriousness of the political warning and the rather basic geographical confusion that briefly accompanied it.

Subscribe now

For anyone needing a refresher, Ohio became the 17th state in 1803, long before Donald Trump Jr., his father or the modern Republican Party entered American politics. The state has produced presidents, hosted major political conventions and played a significant role in national elections for generations. Its statehood is not pending congressional approval, awaiting a presidential signature or dependent on the outcome of Tuesday’s midterms. The question of whether Ohio should become a state was settled before Abraham Lincoln was born, making the remark particularly awkward at a rally devoted to warning voters about the future of the country. Of course, politicians occasionally misspeak, especially during lengthy speeches delivered under the pressure of an election campaign. Trump Jr.’s quick correction suggests he recognized the error. Still, the moment demonstrates how easily a carefully rehearsed political attack can become a comedy routine when a single word goes spectacularly wrong.

The issue Trump Jr. apparently intended to discuss was Washington, D.C., statehood, a genuine and longstanding political controversy. Unlike Ohio, the nation’s capital is a federal district rather than a state. Its residents can participate in presidential elections, but they do not have voting representation in the Senate, and their delegate in the House of Representatives cannot vote on final passage of legislation. Supporters of D.C. statehood argue that hundreds of thousands of American citizens deserve the same congressional representation enjoyed by residents of the 50 states. Opponents raise constitutional and political objections, including concerns about the federal district’s special status and the likely partisan consequences of admitting a new state. Those are legitimate subjects for political debate, requiring careful discussion of representation, constitutional arrangements and congressional authority. Unfortunately, Trump Jr.’s accidental detour through Ohio made it considerably harder to focus on the actual argument.

Republicans have frequently opposed proposals to make Washington, D.C., a state, arguing that the change would likely benefit Democrats by adding congressional representation from a heavily Democratic electorate. Statehood supporters respond that representation should not depend on whether a community is expected to elect Republicans or Democrats. The disagreement involves both constitutional questions and the political balance of power in Congress. Trump Jr. was attempting to present D.C. statehood as part of a broader Democratic strategy to alter American political institutions, placing it alongside his warning about expanding the Supreme Court. That argument is familiar territory for Republican campaign speakers, particularly during closely contested national elections. Yet the Ohio mistake briefly transformed a discussion about institutional power into an accidental suggestion that one of America’s oldest states had somehow been overlooked. Perhaps the simplest campaign preparation would have been to check the list of states before warning voters about adding another one.

Subscribe now

The rally also featured Republican Senator Jon Husted, whose presence introduced another peculiar dimension to the event. While Trump Jr. focused on the Democrats’ supposed plans for Ohio, his father has developed a surprisingly enthusiastic habit of discussing Husted’s physique at political appearances. President Trump has described the senator’s backside as resembling a pile of muscle and repeatedly joked about the extraordinary firmness of his shoulders. At an October 28 rally in Chillicothe, Trump again discussed examining Husted’s physical strength, turning what might ordinarily have been a straightforward political endorsement into an extended appreciation of a fellow Republican’s anatomy. The younger Trump did not repeat those remarks during his Toledo appearance, leaving the audience without another installment of the president’s unusual commentary. Apparently, the family had already contributed enough memorable material to Ohio’s campaign season.

There is something particularly revealing about the contrast between the two episodes. On one side, Trump Jr. was warning voters about Democrats fundamentally transforming the country, only to accidentally suggest that Ohio itself needed to become a state. On the other, the president was publicly celebrating a Republican senator’s muscular build with a level of detail rarely associated with ordinary campaign endorsements. Neither moment tells voters much about inflation, healthcare, wages, public safety or the economic challenges facing Ohio families. Both, however, illustrate how modern political rallies can drift away from substantive discussions and become dominated by personality, spectacle and remarks designed to entertain an audience. Supporters may appreciate the humor, while critics may view the performances as distractions from serious issues. Either way, the memorable moments are not necessarily the ones that help voters understand what elected officials intend to accomplish.

Subscribe now

The timing of Trump Jr.’s mistake made it particularly noticeable. With Election Day just hours away, Republican candidates were attempting to maximize turnout and reinforce their closing arguments. JD Vance’s appearances in Ohio formed part of that effort, reflecting the importance of mobilizing reliable supporters while persuading voters who remained undecided. Campaign rallies during the final days of an election are carefully organized opportunities to deliver simple, memorable messages. Every speaker is expected to reinforce the party’s priorities, attack the opposition and leave voters with a reason to participate. Trump Jr.’s remarks certainly became memorable, although probably not for the reason campaign organizers intended. A verbal stumble is unlikely to determine an election by itself, but it can overshadow the broader message when the mistake is both easy to understand and difficult to ignore. Ohio becoming a state for the second time certainly qualifies.

The episode also reflects the increasingly theatrical nature of American political campaigning. Candidates and their surrogates compete for attention in an environment where a few seconds of an unusual speech can travel farther than an hour of detailed policy discussion. A mistaken reference to Ohio’s statehood is more immediately entertaining than a complicated debate over congressional representation for Washington, D.C. Likewise, a president’s fascination with a senator’s muscles is more likely to inspire jokes than a conventional speech about legislative priorities. That does not mean political gaffes should automatically be treated as evidence of incompetence or that every awkward sentence deserves a national controversy. Public figures are human, and even experienced speakers occasionally confuse words or lose their place. But when politicians build their public image around confidence, authority and the supposed foolishness of their opponents, their own mistakes naturally invite closer scrutiny and sharper ridicule.

Ultimately, Donald Trump Jr.’s Ohio remark was a brief campaign mistake, not a serious proposal to reorganize the United States. He appeared to correct himself almost immediately, and the underlying debate over Washington, D.C., statehood remains a legitimate political issue regardless of his wording. Yet the incident offered a perfectly timed dose of political absurdity on the eve of a consequential national election. Ohio voters were being asked to consider competing visions for the country’s future, while one of the Republican Party’s most prominent campaign surrogates momentarily forgot that their state had already been admitted to the Union more than two centuries earlier. Add the president’s running commentary about Senator Husted’s physical attributes, and Ohio’s closing campaign events have supplied enough material for a political comedy special. The voters will decide the election on November 3, but the history books have already settled one question. Ohio is a state, Donald Jr. It has been for quite some time.

Subscribe now

✍️

Ohio became a state,
In eighteen-oh-three.

Two centuries later,
It’s still news, apparently.

The speeches grew louder,
The history grew thin.

Ohio’s already in the Union.
Someone please let Don Jr. in.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Donald Trump Jr. mistakenly warned that Democrats wanted to make Ohio a state during a November 2 Republican rally near Toledo. He quickly appeared to correct himself, referring instead to Washington, D.C., whose statehood remains a genuine political controversy.

• Ohio has been a state since 1803, while Washington, D.C., remains a federal district without voting representation in Congress. Republicans have raised constitutional and partisan objections to D.C. statehood, while supporters argue that its residents deserve full congressional representation.

• The campaign event came during Vice President JD Vance’s final push for Republican candidates ahead of the November 3 midterms. The moment added to an unusual stretch of Ohio campaign appearances, which have also featured President Trump’s repeated remarks about Senator Jon Husted’s muscular physique.

Biting Fact Of The Day

It took a team of 80 specialists 18 months to create Skarsgård's wicker costume, which consists of 50 interlocking, 3D-printed body pieces.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

The FBI is supposed to investigate crimes, not manufacture cases against people who disagree with the president. But according to a federal lawsuit filed by Douglas DePodesta, the former head of the FBI’s Chicago office, that distinction became increasingly difficult to maintain under the Trump administration. DePodesta alleges that senior Justice Department officials pressured him to investigate political opponents, pursue questionable charges against immigration protesters and support prosecutions that lacked sufficient evidence.

When one of those cases collapsed amid findings of prosecutorial misconduct, he claims the administration made him the scapegoat rather than holding the people responsible for the failures accountable. His lawsuit names FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Chicago’s top federal prosecutor, Andrew Boutros. The allegations have not yet been adjudicated, and the officials named in the complaint have not publicly responded to the claims described. Nevertheless, the account from a veteran FBI official raises questions that deserve far more than the usual political finger-pointing.

DePodesta is not an activist who suddenly discovered an interest in federal law enforcement. He joined the FBI in 2002 and spent more than two decades with the bureau before becoming special agent in charge of its Chicago office in 2024. His responsibilities included overseeing federal investigations in one of the country’s largest metropolitan areas, where immigration enforcement, organized crime and public safety regularly intersect with politically sensitive issues.

According to his lawsuit, tensions intensified during Operation Midway Blitz, the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown in Chicago. Federal agents were confronting demonstrators protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, while prosecutors were pursuing criminal cases against people accused of interfering with immigration officers. DePodesta alleges that some of those prosecutions were driven by political considerations rather than evidence. The distinction matters because federal law enforcement officials are expected to investigate suspected criminal conduct, not select targets based on their political beliefs.

Subscribe now

One confrontation described in the lawsuit involved an allegation that a protester had assaulted a federal immigration officer. According to DePodesta, prosecutors wanted the FBI to prepare an affidavit supporting an assault charge, but investigators reviewed video footage and reached a different conclusion. The footage allegedly showed incidental physical contact resulting from an immigration agent tackling the protester, rather than an intentional assault by the demonstrator. DePodesta claims that Boutros reacted with hostility when the FBI declined to support the requested allegation. That episode, if accurately described, illustrates the difference between investigating what happened and attempting to make the available evidence fit a preferred prosecution. Physical contact during a confrontation does not automatically establish a criminal assault, and the precise circumstances matter. Prosecutors are entitled to assess evidence independently, but investigators should not be pressured to characterize footage in ways they believe the facts do not support.

The lawsuit also alleges that Boutros repeatedly sent DePodesta emails demanding investigations into people whose political views or affiliations opposed the Trump administration. Those accusations go to the heart of what federal law enforcement is supposed to represent. Americans do not lose their constitutional protections because they criticize immigration enforcement, protest government policies or support candidates disliked by the White House. Peaceful political activity is protected, even when it is disruptive, unpopular or deeply offensive to those in power. Of course, protesters who commit crimes can be investigated and prosecuted, and political beliefs do not provide immunity from criminal law. The concern raised by DePodesta is whether the government was identifying actual criminal conduct first or identifying political opponents and then searching for a criminal case against them. His complaint alleges the latter, but establishing that claim will require evidence beyond the assertions contained in the lawsuit.

The central controversy involves the Broadview Six, a group of activists charged after protesting outside an ICE facility in suburban Chicago in September 2025. Federal prosecutors accused the six defendants of conspiring to impede an immigration officer, but the case encountered serious problems almost immediately. A grand jury initially declined to approve the proposed charges, an unusual development given the relatively low evidentiary threshold required for an indictment. Rather than abandoning the effort, prosecutors returned to the grand jury and continued seeking charges. The case dragged on for months before prosecutors ultimately dismissed it following problems with the proceedings. A judge subsequently found prosecutorial misconduct involving the grand jury process. That finding is an established development in the case, separate from DePodesta’s additional allegations about the motives and conduct of senior officials. The collapse of the prosecution left the Justice Department facing difficult questions about how the case had been handled and why it had continued despite repeated setbacks.

Subscribe now

DePodesta’s lawsuit alleges that Boutros played a more direct role in the Broadview Six prosecution than his public statements suggested. According to the complaint, Boutros indicated that he had not communicated with Justice Department headquarters about the case, but DePodesta claims to have personally attended two meetings where the prosecution was discussed with senior officials. One of those meetings allegedly included Patel and Blanche. The lawsuit also suggests that federal prosecutors faced pressure to pursue charges against Kat Abughazaleh, an activist who was running for Congress at the time. Perhaps most seriously, DePodesta alleges that Boutros knowingly made false statements to a judge when he said he had been unaware of misconduct in the grand jury proceedings. These are significant accusations involving prosecutorial integrity and representations made to a federal court. They remain allegations from one side of a legal dispute, but the underlying judicial finding of misconduct makes the broader questions about the prosecution particularly important.

After the Broadview Six case fell apart, DePodesta claims the focus shifted from explaining the prosecution’s failures to finding someone else to blame. His lawsuit alleges that Boutros accused him of contributing to the case’s collapse and repeatedly complained to senior Justice Department officials that the FBI official was responsible. One accusation involved DePodesta’s sister-in-law, Nancy DePodesta, a defense attorney who represented one of the defendants. According to the lawsuit, Boutros suggested that DePodesta had improperly coordinated with her to undermine the prosecution. DePodesta denies discussing the case with his sister-in-law and says senior FBI officials supported his account. Having a relative involved in a criminal proceeding can create legitimate questions about potential conflicts of interest, but a family relationship alone does not establish misconduct. The lawsuit portrays the accusation as an effort to redirect responsibility away from the prosecutors whose actions had come under judicial scrutiny.

The dispute eventually ended DePodesta’s long FBI career. He left his position in July 2026, alleging that senior officials were pressured to force him out despite knowing that the accusations against him were unfounded. His complaint includes claims involving defamation, due process and freedom of speech, arguing that his removal violated his legal and constitutional rights. The FBI’s public response to his departure added another layer of controversy. In a social media post, the bureau suggested that employees unwilling to support the FBI under Trump’s leadership were free to leave. DePodesta describes that statement as a false and defamatory explanation for his removal. The language itself is revealing because it frames employment within a federal law enforcement agency around support for a particular administration’s leadership. Federal officials must lawfully carry out the policies of elected leaders, but their professional obligations also include the Constitution, applicable law and the integrity of criminal investigations.

Subscribe now

The broader record of prosecutions connected to Chicago’s immigration crackdown provides additional context for DePodesta’s allegations. According to figures cited in his lawsuit, only approximately 6% of cases brought against anti-ICE protesters during Operation Midway Blitz resulted in findings of guilt. That is an exceptionally low proportion, although interpreting the figure requires knowing how many cases remained pending, were dismissed or ended in other outcomes. A low conviction rate does not automatically establish that every prosecution was politically motivated or improperly filed. Nevertheless, when a major enforcement campaign produces repeated failures, prosecutors have an obligation to examine whether their charging decisions were sound. Criminal cases impose substantial costs on defendants, including legal expenses, reputational damage and the disruption of everyday life. Even when charges are eventually dismissed, those consequences do not simply disappear. The government should therefore exercise particular care before bringing cases involving constitutionally protected protest activity.

Ultimately, DePodesta’s lawsuit presents a serious test of accountability within the federal justice system. His allegations describe a Justice Department where political considerations allegedly influenced investigative demands, prosecutors pursued cases despite evidentiary concerns, and a senior FBI official was pushed out after refusing to cooperate with questionable decisions. The defendants are entitled to challenge those accusations, and a court will need to determine whether DePodesta’s account is supported by documents, testimony and applicable law. But the questions raised extend beyond one official’s employment dispute. Who decides whether a protester should be investigated? What happens when federal agents conclude that the evidence does not support the charges prosecutors want? Can law enforcement professionals disagree with political appointees without risking their careers? DePodesta says he brought the lawsuit because Americans deserve to know what is happening inside their government. Whether he ultimately prevails or not, the controversy underscores a principle that should never depend on which party occupies the White House: federal criminal investigations must be governed by evidence and law, not by the political usefulness of the people being prosecuted.

Subscribe now

✍️

The evidence was reviewed.
The pressure allegedly grew.

The charges were pursued.
The courtroom demanded proof.

When a case falls apart,
Who is left to take the blame?

Justice should follow facts,
Not the president’s chosen names.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Former Chicago FBI chief Douglas DePodesta has sued senior Trump administration officials, alleging that he was pressured to investigate political opponents and support questionable prosecutions of anti-ICE protesters. He also claims he was unlawfully forced from his position after refusing to cooperate with those demands.

• The lawsuit centers on the failed Broadview Six prosecution, which was dismissed after problems with grand jury proceedings and a judicial finding of prosecutorial misconduct. DePodesta alleges that Chicago’s top federal prosecutor, Andrew Boutros, made false statements about the case and subsequently blamed him for its collapse. Those additional allegations remain unproven.

• The dispute raises broader questions about political influence over federal investigations, the treatment of government employees who challenge prosecutorial decisions and the protection of lawful protest. The outcome will depend on the evidence presented in court, but the principle at stake is clear: criminal charges must be supported by facts rather than political pressure.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

The Midterms Have Become an $11.6 Billion Election

Political spending in the 2026 election cycle is expected to reach approximately $11.6 billion, with nearly $6 billion going toward television advertising alone. Cryptocurrency interests have poured nearly $180 million into more than 100 races, while Elon Musk has reportedly spent hundreds of millions on this year’s elections. Whatever happens tomorrow, this midterm has demonstrated just how enormous the financial machinery surrounding American congressional elections has become.

Trump Makes His Final Midterm Pitch — With His Approval Still Near a Record Low

President Trump delivered his closing message to voters today as a new Reuters/Ipsos poll put his approval rating at 32%, just one point above his record low. The same poll found Democrats ahead 46% to 38% among registered voters on the national congressional ballot, although national polling cannot determine individual House and Senate races. Cost-of-living concerns and the Iran conflict remain prominent issues as voters prepare for Election Day.

Justice Department Takes the California Ballot Fight to the Supreme Court

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court today to intervene in its effort to set aside roughly 20,000 California mail ballots connected to voters whose citizenship the government questions. Lower courts rejected the request, with California arguing that the federal list is unreliable and includes eligible citizens. Coming literally one day before the election, the emergency appeal puts the Supreme Court directly into one of this year’s most contentious voting disputes.

Federal Judge Throws Out Case Against Former FBI Officials

A federal judge dismissed a criminal case today against former senior FBI officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, who were accused of lying to Congress about investigations involving Hunter Biden. The judge sharply criticized the Justice Department’s handling of the prosecution and concluded that prosecutors had not established that the officials knowingly made false statements. The Justice Department disagrees with the decision and is considering its next steps.

Justice Department’s Role in the Midterms Is Facing New Scrutiny

A Reuters examination published today found that the Justice Department has taken a much more direct role in election disputes than has traditionally been considered normal immediately before a federal election. Its actions include the California ballot litigation and an investigation surrounding Alaska’s Senate contest. Supporters of the administration say the department is enforcing election laws, while critics argue that law enforcement is being drawn too deeply into partisan election battles.

A Democratic Civil War Explodes in Michigan One Day Before Voting

Michigan’s Senate race has been thrown into turmoil after Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers rather than Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed, who defeated her in the primary. Stevens defended that decision in a new interview today, while prominent Democrats condemned it. El-Sayed’s campaign says it raised about $2.4 million following the controversy, turning what was already an important Senate contest into one of the most dramatic stories of the final campaign weekend.

Trump Signals That Another Attack on Iran May Not Happen

Trump today raised doubts about whether the United States will resume military strikes against Iran, saying a negotiated agreement remains possible. Tehran, meanwhile, is pushing an accelerated ceasefire proposal that it says could begin being implemented within two days of an agreement. The change in tone is significant after weeks of warnings about possible renewed military action following the midterms.

Netanyahu Is Pressing Trump for New Strikes on Iran After the Election

While Trump talks publicly about the possibility of diplomacy, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is urging him to launch a major new air campaign against Iran after Tuesday’s election, according to officials briefed on their discussions. Trump has not agreed to do so and continues to say he would prefer a negotiated settlement. That leaves Washington balancing two very different paths—another round of military escalation or an attempt to bring the conflict toward an agreement.

More Than 54 Million Americans Have Already Voted

Election Day hasn’t technically arrived, but tens of millions of Americans have already made their decision. More than 54 million early votes had been cast by today, according to data cited by CBS News. That enormous number means much of the electorate is already locked in, leaving the campaigns’ frantic final-day messaging aimed at a shrinking pool of voters who have not yet cast ballots.

Trump’s Justice Department Loses Its Alaska Election Case — and Immediately Appeals

A federal judge has dismissed the administration’s attempt to block certification of Alaska’s Senate results if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses. The Justice Department had argued that the presence of another candidate named Daniel Sullivan could confuse voters, but the judge ruled that the department lacked proper legal standing to bring the case. The administration has already filed notice that it will appeal.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Michigan Democrats were supposed to be spending the final days before Election Day convincing voters to send Abdul El-Sayed to the United States Senate. Instead, they are dealing with an extraordinary political rebellion from one of their own. Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who lost the Democratic Senate primary to El-Sayed in August, has endorsed his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, just days before voters make their final decision. Stevens appeared alongside Rogers at a predominantly Black church in Detroit before publicly announcing her support for the Republican candidate.

The endorsement immediately ignited outrage among Democrats, who accused her of abandoning her party, betraying her supporters and undermining one of the most consequential Senate campaigns of the election cycle. For a politician who has spent years criticizing Donald Trump’s agenda, throwing her support behind Trump’s preferred Senate candidate is a remarkable reversal. Apparently, losing a primary can change someone’s political priorities faster than an entire congressional career.

The decision did not emerge from nowhere. Stevens and El-Sayed fought a bitter Democratic primary, with disagreements over Israel becoming one of the campaign’s most divisive issues. Stevens has been a staunch supporter of Israel, while El-Sayed has taken a sharply different position on American policy toward the Israeli government. Those disagreements continued after El-Sayed won the nomination, complicating efforts to unite the party behind him. For months, Stevens resisted actively campaigning for her former opponent, even as Democratic leaders worked to negotiate a political truce. Eventually, she offered a restrained endorsement, and plans were made for her to appear alongside El-Sayed at a Detroit church during the campaign’s closing weekend. The arrangement was hardly a celebration of newfound friendship, but it offered Democrats an opportunity to demonstrate unity. That fragile agreement collapsed almost immediately, revealing just how deeply the primary’s political wounds remained open.

Subscribe now

The final rupture centered on a campaign advertisement produced by an outside group, which connected American support for Israel to rising living costs. Stevens demanded that El-Sayed publicly denounce the advertisement before she would appear with him. El-Sayed refused, arguing that the demand unnecessarily reopened a disagreement voters had already considered during the Democratic primary. As tensions escalated, his campaign formally disinvited Stevens from its remaining events. Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell later acknowledged that she had helped communicate the decision, explaining that the conflict had become a distraction and that little would be gained by placing the two politicians together. Both sides contributed to the collapse of the planned appearance, but Stevens’s subsequent decision to endorse the Republican nominee transformed an internal disagreement into something much larger. A dispute over campaign messaging had become a direct challenge to the party’s chosen candidate.

The speed of Stevens’s political reversal made the episode even more startling. Earlier on Sunday, she released a statement indicating that she expected El-Sayed to win and encouraging people to participate in the election. Hours later, she appeared with Rogers and expressed support for his proposed investments in Black-owned businesses. The change left Democrats struggling to understand how a former primary candidate could move from reluctantly supporting her party’s nominee to actively campaigning for his Republican opponent in the same day. Stevens is entitled to make her own political decisions, and disagreement with a party nominee does not eliminate that right. But voters are equally entitled to question whether her endorsement reflects a genuine change in policy priorities, a deeply held disagreement over Israel or lingering resentment from the primary. Whatever her reasoning, the practical effect is clear: she has given Rogers a valuable opportunity to portray himself as capable of attracting support from across party lines.

The backlash from Democratic leaders was immediate and unusually personal. Neera Tanden, a former senior adviser to President Joe Biden, described the endorsement as a betrayal of the principles Stevens had defended throughout her career and of the supporters who had believed in her. Michigan Democratic Party chair Curtis Hertel accused Stevens of abandoning her stated commitments by supporting a Republican he characterized as aligned with Trump’s agenda and opposed to abortion rights. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer’s campaign organization also condemned the endorsement while reaffirming its support for El-Sayed. These reactions reflect more than ordinary frustration with a colleague who has taken an unpopular position. Democrats see Michigan as a critical Senate battleground, and Stevens’s decision threatens to complicate their efforts to consolidate voters at the moment unity matters most. A party can survive ideological disagreement, but watching one of its own elected officials campaign for the opposing nominee days before an election is an entirely different problem.

Subscribe now

Perhaps the most revealing response came from Stevens’s own political team. Her longtime chief of staff, Justin German, and communications director, Logan Basch, were among those reported to have left following the endorsement. German, who had worked with Stevens for eight years, subsequently issued a statement on behalf of her campaign team expressing wholehearted support for El-Sayed. The statement described the team as shocked and heartbroken by Stevens’s decision and emphasized that the election was too important for division or political disengagement. That response undercuts any suggestion that her endorsement represented a broader consensus among the people who had helped build her political career. Staff members who spent years advancing Stevens’s priorities are now publicly supporting the candidate she rejected. It is an extraordinary spectacle: a Democratic congresswoman endorsing a Republican while members of her own team reaffirm their commitment to the Democratic nominee.

Donald Trump, unsurprisingly, wasted little time celebrating the development. The president praised Stevens as a highly respected Democrat and enthusiastically promoted her endorsement of Rogers. He also used the occasion to attack El-Sayed, referring to him with a distorted version of his name, continuing a pattern of rhetoric that has drawn criticism for targeting the candidate’s Muslim identity. The irony is difficult to overlook. Stevens has publicly criticized Trump’s policies and maintains a dedicated section of her congressional website outlining her opposition to his administration. Yet her endorsement has now become a political advertisement for the very president she has repeatedly challenged. Trump does not need Stevens to agree with his broader agenda to benefit from her decision. He only needs voters to see a prominent Democrat standing beside his chosen candidate and suggesting that Rogers deserves their support. In politics, the symbolism can sometimes be more valuable than the explanation.

El-Sayed, meanwhile, has attempted to redirect attention away from the feud and toward the issues he believes should determine the election. Speaking to reporters outside a campaign rally, he said he was not particularly interested in discussing Stevens and would rather focus on policy than political drama. He urged voters concerned about hateful rhetoric and the direction of the country to consider whether Rogers and Trump’s political agenda reflected their values. His response was relatively restrained given the intensity of the controversy, suggesting that his campaign recognizes the danger of spending the final days before Election Day fighting another Democrat instead of making its case to undecided voters. The challenge is especially significant because El-Sayed has already faced attacks involving his religion and political associations. Adding a public dispute with Stevens creates another distraction at a moment when his campaign would prefer to discuss economic concerns, healthcare and the future of Michigan.

The controversy also illustrates how disagreements over Israel have become a powerful dividing force within the Democratic Party. Stevens’s strong support for Israel and El-Sayed’s criticism of American policy toward the Israeli government represent genuinely different political positions, not merely a personal disagreement between two candidates. Those differences deserve serious discussion, particularly when they involve foreign policy, military assistance and America’s responsibilities abroad. But Stevens’s decision to endorse Rogers raises a separate question about political priorities. Supporting a candidate from the opposing party does not simply register dissatisfaction with one foreign policy position; it potentially affects a much broader range of domestic and international policies. Rogers and El-Sayed differ on issues extending well beyond Israel, including their relationships with Trump and their approaches to federal governance. Voters evaluating Stevens’s endorsement must therefore consider whether her objection to El-Sayed outweighs the many other policy differences between the candidates.

Ultimately, Stevens’s endorsement has turned the closing days of Michigan’s Senate race into an unexpected test of political loyalty, personal conviction and party unity. She has every right to support the candidate she believes is best suited for office, just as Democrats have every right to criticize a decision they consider inconsistent with her previous commitments. But the timing and circumstances make the endorsement especially consequential. A former Democratic primary contender has publicly backed the Republican nominee, her own staff members have distanced themselves from the decision, and Trump has enthusiastically embraced the opportunity to promote his candidate. Whether this changes enough votes to affect the outcome remains uncertain. What is undeniable is that Stevens has transformed a private political disagreement into a national controversy just before Election Day. Michigan voters will ultimately decide whether her endorsement matters, but one thing is already clear: the candidate who lost the Democratic primary has found a way to become one of the biggest stories of the general election.

Subscribe now

✍️

The primary was lost.
The bitterness remained.

The party sought unity.
The endorsement changed.

Trump found a headline.
Democrats found a fight.

Michigan has the final word
When voters decide Tuesday night.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens endorsed Republican Mike Rogers after losing Michigan’s Senate primary to Abdul El-Sayed. Her decision followed months of tension over Israel and the collapse of a planned joint campaign appearance with El-Sayed in Detroit.

• The endorsement sparked strong criticism from Democratic leaders, while members of Stevens’s own campaign team publicly reaffirmed their support for El-Sayed. Donald Trump welcomed her decision, turning the Democratic Party’s internal dispute into a political opportunity for Rogers.

• With Election Day approaching, the controversy highlights deep divisions over foreign policy and raises questions about party unity in a closely contested Senate race. Stevens’s endorsement may influence some voters, but the ultimate impact will depend on whether Michigan voters prioritize her concerns or the broader policy differences between the two candidates.

Biting Fact Of The Day

The FBI is now investigating a heist of 6,452 trading cards — mostly Pokémon and sports cards — stolen from a FedEx truck idling outside of a PSA grading facility in California.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

What it means to trust a political system when the people running it seem increasingly interested in questioning its legitimacy. We ask Americans to vote, participate, and believe in democratic institutions, yet some of the same politicians asking for that trust appear prepared to challenge the process whenever the outcome becomes inconvenient. It is a troubling contradiction, particularly when millions of citizens are making the effort to participate.

What encourages me this week is the extraordinary level of early voting. Whatever our political disagreements, tens of millions of Americans have decided that their participation matters enough to make time for it. That is something worth appreciating, even if the eventual results disappoint one side or the other.

But voting is only part of the responsibility we share. The people elected on Tuesday will inherit an economy where many households are struggling, a prolonged international conflict, and growing questions about the role of technology in our lives. Those challenges will not disappear when the campaign advertisements stop, and neither should our expectations of the people we elect.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that democracy is not supposed to guarantee that our preferred candidates always win. It is supposed to provide a fair process through which citizens choose their representatives, hold them accountable, and replace them when they fail to deliver. That principle becomes especially meaningful when the result isn’t the one we wanted.

As we head into the final weekend before the midterms, I hope we can approach Tuesday with a little more perspective. Political parties will celebrate victories and mourn defeats, but the country will still need functioning institutions, responsible leadership, and neighbors willing to treat one another with basic respect.

Thank you for spending another weekend with Small Bite. Whatever happens on Tuesday, we’ll be here to examine the decisions, question the promises, and remember that the real work of democracy begins after the ballots are counted.

Have a wonderful weekend, friends, and I’ll see you next week.

Subscribe now

Weekly Servings

More Than 43 Million Americans Have Already Voted

Americans are turning out early in remarkable numbers ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections, with more than 43 million people having voted in person or returned mail ballots as of Friday, according to an Associated Press analysis. That’s nearly 10 million more than at the same point before the 2022 midterms, with particularly significant increases in Texas, Maine, Kansas, and Michigan. Texas alone has recorded more than 6.3 million early votes, while competitive Senate races are drawing national attention and substantial campaign spending. Of course, higher early participation doesn’t automatically mean either party is heading for victory, since voters’ preferences cannot be reliably determined from turnout figures alone. But at a time when Americans are frequently described as disillusioned with politics, millions are demonstrating that they still believe showing up matters.

Trump’s Justice Department Is Escalating Election Battles Before Tuesday

With Election Day approaching, the Trump administration is intensifying legal challenges involving election procedures in several states, raising concerns about federal intervention in contests traditionally administered by state officials. In Alaska, the Justice Department filed an amended lawsuit seeking to prevent certification under certain circumstances if Republican Senator Dan Sullivan narrowly loses, citing allegations that Democratic operatives recruited a candidate with the same name to confuse voters. In California, federal officials have also issued subpoenas as part of an investigation into alleged noncitizen voting, while courts have questioned aspects of the administration’s efforts. Election irregularities deserve legitimate investigation, but the timing and scope of these actions raise an equally important question about whether federal power is being exercised impartially. Democracy requires confidence that election laws will be applied consistently, not adjusted according to which party appears likely to win.

Inflation Is Still Making Americans Miserable, Even as the Economy Grows

The American economy continues to present an uncomfortable contradiction: economic output is growing, but many households feel financially worse off. September inflation reached 3.7% annually, well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, while wage growth has struggled to keep pace with rising prices. Consumer sentiment remains near historic lows, and recent polling shows widespread frustration over the affordability of everyday purchases. The Iran conflict has added pressure through higher energy costs, making it increasingly difficult for the Trump administration to convince voters that economic growth is translating into financial relief. Economists may debate whether the broader economy is performing well, but families tend to conduct their own research at the grocery store, gas station, and kitchen table. Unfortunately for politicians, those are places where campaign promises offer very limited purchasing power.

Texas Could Deliver One of the Biggest Political Surprises of the Midterms

Texas has become one of the most closely watched Senate battlegrounds, with Republican Ken Paxton facing Democrat James Talarico in a race that could influence control of Congress. Republicans have dominated statewide elections in Texas for decades, but recent polling suggests a more competitive environment, particularly as some Latino voters reconsider their political allegiances and Paxton faces concerns about his personal favorability. Democrats see an opportunity to challenge assumptions about the state’s political future, while Republicans are working to maintain their longstanding advantage. A Democratic victory would be a significant political upset, although competitive polling is not the same thing as an election result. Either way, the race demonstrates that even states considered politically predictable can become much more interesting when voters begin questioning their usual choices.

Iran Diplomacy Continues While the War Threatens Global Shipping

Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict with Iran continued this week, with Qatari mediators returning to Tehran to explore a possible agreement between Washington and Iranian officials. President Trump suggested Friday that the war could end soon, but the situation remains dangerous, with reports of tankers striking mines near the Strait of Hormuz and continued concerns about the security of commercial shipping. The conflict has already affected global energy markets, increased economic uncertainty, and complicated America’s relationships across the Middle East. Diplomatic progress would be welcome, but declarations of an approaching resolution are not the same thing as an actual agreement. After months of military confrontation, the question is no longer simply whether either side can claim victory, but whether leaders can establish a sustainable peace before the consequences become even more severe.

Wall Street Is Getting Nervous About the AI Boom

Investors are approaching next week’s earnings reports and economic data with increasing caution as questions grow about the enormous amounts of money being invested in artificial intelligence. Companies including Apple, AMD, and Palantir are expected to report results, while markets also await the next employment report and the outcome of Tuesday’s elections. The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady this week, adding another consideration for investors already concerned about inflation and technology valuations. Artificial intelligence may transform entire industries, but businesses still need to demonstrate that their spending can produce sustainable returns. The technology sector has spent years promising extraordinary possibilities, and Wall Street is beginning to ask a wonderfully old-fashioned question: when does all this investment start paying for itself?

Subscribe now

✍️

The ballots carry quiet hopes,
the promises fill the air.
Power may change hands on Tuesday,
but the people’s trust is theirs to bear.

🍽 A Small Bite to Carry

• Democracy belongs to voters, not political parties. Election rules should be transparent, consistently enforced, and respected regardless of which candidate benefits from the outcome.

• Economic growth means little without financial security. A thriving stock market cannot substitute for affordable housing, groceries, healthcare, and everyday necessities.

• Political promises should come with measurable results. Whether ending a war, improving the economy, or investing in new technology, leadership should be judged by outcomes rather than announcements.

So glad you can be here today. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber of this community so we can do even more.. Your presence here matters. Thank you for choosing a newsletter that connects policy with people, headlines with humanity.

Thanks for paying attention and thanks for being a supporter—your presence makes space for thought that lasts longer than the scroll.

Warm regards,
Small Bites

Subscribe now

Have a great weekend!!

Referral program:

When you use the referral link below, or the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

When more friends use your referral link to subscribe (free or paid), you’ll receive special benefits.

• Get a 1 month comp for 8 referrals

• Get a 3 month comp for 18 referrals

• Get a 6 month comp for 28 referrals

  Subscribe now

  Leave a comment

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Flávio Bolsonaro has managed to accomplish something remarkable in Brazilian politics: lose a presidential election, flee the country, declare himself the rightful winner, and become a national punchline in less than a week. The far-right senator, who lost Sunday’s presidential election to incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva by approximately 4.4 million votes, apparently decided that accepting defeat was an optional feature of democracy. Instead, he traveled to Miami and issued a grand proclamation identifying himself as Brazil’s true president-elect. That declaration survived for approximately 58 minutes before being replaced with a revised version. In the meantime, the defeated candidate had transformed an already humiliating political setback into an extraordinary spectacle of self-importance, historical confusion and international embarrassment.

Brazil has witnessed its share of political theater, but a politician announcing his imaginary presidency from Florida while the actual president remains in office deserves a category of its own.

The election result itself was hardly ambiguous. Lula defeated Bolsonaro by millions of votes, and the outcome was recognized by political leaders across the ideological spectrum, including conservative figures such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele. Even Bolsonaro’s own political party and several influential allies acknowledged the result. Yet the defeated candidate appeared unwilling to accept the same reality that virtually everyone around him had already recognized. After arriving in the United States, he released a letter claiming that the election had been tainted by fraud and that he, rather than Lula, was Brazil’s legitimate president-elect.

The allegations were not accompanied by substantiated evidence capable of overturning the result. Apparently, millions of ballots, official election procedures and international recognition were insufficient to compete with one politician’s determination to award himself a victory.

Subscribe now

The letter might have been remembered merely as another extravagant political statement if its presentation had not been so spectacularly embarrassing. Its original letterhead reportedly featured an outdated Brazilian coat of arms and referred to the country as the United States of Brazil, a name abandoned in 1967. That means a politician claiming to lead modern Brazil apparently issued his presidential proclamation using national symbolism from nearly six decades ago. The document was also reportedly prepared with assistance from ChatGPT, although the extent of any artificial intelligence involvement has not been independently established. Technology can help draft a letter, but it cannot supply political legitimacy, verify a disputed election result or replace basic attention to historical accuracy. The combination of an invented presidential title, an obsolete national designation and a hastily corrected document created an impression less reminiscent of a functioning government than a poorly researched school project.

Bolsonaro’s attempt to elevate his predicament through historical comparisons only added to the absurdity. In his proclamation, he likened himself to Charles de Gaulle, who led the Free French resistance against Nazi occupation from London, and José Martí, the Cuban independence figure who challenged Spanish colonial rule while living abroad. He also invoked Brazilian statesman Rui Barbosa and Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, presenting his departure as part of a noble tradition of political resistance. The comparison requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. De Gaulle was organizing resistance against an occupying military power, while Martí dedicated his life to Cuban independence. Bolsonaro, by contrast, had just lost an internationally recognized election and left Brazil amid legal difficulties. Historical figures who challenged authoritarian regimes cannot simply be recruited as honorary members of someone’s personal campaign to avoid accepting an electoral defeat. Wearing the language of exile does not automatically transform an unsuccessful candidate into a freedom fighter.

The proclamation’s lifespan was almost as remarkable as its contents. Less than an hour after Bolsonaro announced himself as president-elect, a revised version appeared, replacing that claim with the less specific designation of leader of Brazil. The corrected document also updated the outdated national emblem. Accounts surrounding the revision suggested that officials within the Trump administration had objected to the original language because of concerns about provoking a diplomatic confrontation with Brazil’s recognized government. That explanation has not been independently established, but the rapid retreat speaks for itself. A politician who claims to possess the authority to lead an entire country should presumably be able to maintain that claim for longer than a typical lunch break. Instead, Bolsonaro’s self-declared presidency lasted barely enough time for the internet to notice, ridicule and begin producing commemorative jokes.

Subscribe now

The reaction inside Brazil was swift and remarkably unforgiving, including from voices normally sympathetic to conservative politics. Commentators described the episode as an embarrassing display of political incompetence, while conservative critics argued that the Bolsonaro family’s conduct had damaged the credibility of the broader right. Perhaps the most striking criticism came from Silas Malafaia, an influential evangelical leader closely associated with Flávio’s father, Jair Bolsonaro. Malafaia reportedly described the Bolsonaro sons as amateur fools, an unusually harsh judgment from someone with longstanding connections to the family’s political movement. Such reactions suggest that the controversy has moved beyond the familiar divide between supporters and opponents. When ideological allies begin openly questioning a political family’s judgment, the problem is no longer merely bad publicity. It becomes a question of whether the family can continue to command the loyalty of the movement it helped build.

The internet, naturally, showed considerably less restraint. One widely circulated joke invited Bolsonaro supporters to attend his presidential inauguration at Cinderella Castle in Walt Disney World, turning his Florida escape into an imaginary royal ceremony. Another reworked the movement’s familiar slogan about God, homeland and family into a farewell to the homeland and family left behind. The mockery reflects the striking contrast between Bolsonaro’s dramatic self-presentation and the circumstances surrounding his departure. He had hoped to emerge from the election as Brazil’s next president. Instead, he became the subject of jokes about imaginary inaugurations, obsolete stationery and a presidency measured in minutes. Political satire is not evidence of criminal wrongdoing, nor does public ridicule resolve the legal questions surrounding him. But it can expose the gap between how politicians portray themselves and how their actions are perceived by the public.

The consequences for Brazil’s far right may be more serious than the jokes suggest. Since Jair Bolsonaro’s rise to the presidency in 2018, the family’s political identity has dominated much of the country’s conservative movement. Loyalty to the Bolsonaro name frequently overshadowed competing leaders, policy differences and traditional party structures. But Flávio’s defeat and subsequent departure have intensified questions about whether the right should continue organizing itself around the family’s personal fortunes. São Paulo Governor Tarcísio de Freitas has emerged as a potential alternative, offering conservatives a prominent figure who is not directly dependent on the Bolsonaro surname. Some political observers believe the latest episode could accelerate a transition away from family-centered leadership. Others caution that the movement remains powerful, particularly given the millions of Brazilians who voted for Flávio. A political dynasty can lose credibility without immediately losing its entire electorate, and the future of Bolsonarismo will depend on whether its supporters remain loyal to the family or begin looking elsewhere.

Donald Trump’s response has introduced another layer of uncertainty. The American president has declined to publicly recognize Lula’s victory, describing the Brazilian election as an embarrassment, but he has also stopped short of endorsing Flávio’s claim to be the legitimate winner. When asked whether he regarded Bolsonaro as Brazil’s rightful leader, Trump said he would not become involved. Meanwhile, an American diplomatic assessment reportedly characterized Lula’s victory as surprising but definitive. The contrast highlights the difference between political rhetoric and the practical realities of international relations. Washington may have ideological sympathies with Bolsonaro and his supporters, but recognizing an imaginary government would create significant diplomatic complications with one of Latin America’s largest democracies. For now, Flávio’s presence in Miami does not make him Brazil’s president, and his declarations do not alter the official election outcome. The presidency remains with Lula, regardless of how many letters his defeated opponent publishes.

Ultimately, Flávio Bolsonaro’s brief attempt to crown himself president-elect is a story about the collision between political ambition and reality. Losing an election can be painful, particularly for a candidate carrying the expectations of a powerful political family and millions of supporters. But electoral defeat does not become illegitimate simply because the losing candidate finds it personally unacceptable. Bolsonaro remains entitled to pursue lawful challenges, defend himself against allegations and participate in political debate, even from abroad. What he has not demonstrated is a credible basis for replacing the certified outcome with his own declaration of victory. The episode has left conservative allies frustrated, opponents amused and Brazil’s far-right movement facing an uncertain leadership struggle. The most revealing detail may be that his imaginary presidency lasted only 58 minutes. It took millions of Brazilians to elect their president, but apparently less than an hour for Flávio Bolsonaro to discover that announcing yourself as the winner is considerably easier than convincing anyone else.

Subscribe now

✍️

The votes were counted.
The bags were packed.

The title was claimed.
The letter was retracted.

An old coat of arms.
A brand-new fantasy.

Fifty-eight minutes of glory.
A lifetime of political comedy.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Flávio Bolsonaro fled to Miami after losing Brazil’s presidential election to Lula by approximately 4.4 million votes. He subsequently issued a letter declaring himself the country’s true president-elect, despite the election result being recognized by his own party and numerous international leaders.

• His self-declared presidential status lasted approximately 58 minutes before a revised letter appeared. The original document also contained an outdated Brazilian national emblem and a country name abandoned in 1967, prompting widespread ridicule and criticism, including from conservative figures associated with the Bolsonaro movement.

• The episode has intensified debate over the future of Brazil’s far right. While the Bolsonaro family retains a substantial political following, prominent conservatives are increasingly discussing alternative leaders, including São Paulo Governor Tarcísio de Freitas, as the movement confronts the consequences of its defeated candidate’s actions.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Trump Suddenly Puts Iowa and Kansas Rallies Back on His Schedule

President Trump has reversed plans to cancel weekend rallies in Iowa and Kansas, adding both states back to his final campaign swing as Republicans work to maximize turnout. More than 48 million Americans have already voted, putting enormous pressure on both parties to reach the voters who remain. The schedule change is notable because presidential campaigns rarely spend precious final days in states unless party strategists believe the visit could make a difference.

Justice Department Expands Its Election Fight Just Days Before Voting Ends

The Trump administration is intensifying legal action involving elections in several states, particularly Alaska and California. In Alaska, the Justice Department amended its lawsuit concerning the unusual Senate race involving two candidates named Dan Sullivan, while California remains locked in litigation with the federal government over suspected noncitizen voters. The sheer amount of federal election litigation this close to Election Day is putting election administration itself near the center of the political story.

Judge Orders Justice Department to Reveal Its California Voter List

A federal judge today ordered the Justice Department to turn over the list it used to identify more than 20,000 California voters suspected of being noncitizens. California officials have challenged the reliability of the government’s information, while the administration argues it is trying to prevent illegal voting. The order matters because it could finally expose exactly how federal officials determined which registered voters should be questioned.

Alaska Governor Raises the Possibility of Not Certifying a Democratic Senate Victory

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has suggested the state could withhold certification if Democrat Mary Peltola wins the Senate race amid the controversy surrounding another candidate named Dan Sullivan. Republicans are investigating allegations that Democratic operatives helped recruit the second Sullivan to draw votes away from Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. Democrats dispute allegations of wrongdoing, but what began as an unusual ballot story has now developed into a serious dispute over certification.

Trump Says the Iran War Will Be “Wrapped Up Soon”

Trump said today that he expects the war with Iran to end soon, offering one of his clearest recent signals that he believes the conflict could be approaching a conclusion. The statement comes as diplomatic contacts continue and the administration faces domestic pressure over the war’s costs and effects on energy prices. With Americans voting in the midterms, any meaningful movement involving Iran could quickly become part of the closing political argument.

New Report Says Trump’s Tariffs Haven’t Reduced the U.S. Trade Deficit

A report released today found that Trump’s tariffs have not produced the promised reduction in America’s trade deficit. The findings arrive at an awkward political moment because tariffs are one of the administration’s signature economic policies and have featured heavily in Trump’s argument that he is rebuilding American manufacturing. Critics say tariffs have raised costs for businesses and consumers, while the administration maintains that their longer-term benefits will take time to emerge.

America’s Growing Debt Is Becoming a Bigger Political Problem

Investors are increasingly concerned about deteriorating U.S. government finances as the country approaches the midterms. Federal deficits, rising interest expenses and the trajectory of the national debt are creating pressure regardless of which party controls Congress after Tuesday. The issue has received less campaign attention than inflation or gasoline prices, but it could become one of the next Congress’s most difficult economic problems.

A Federal Judge Orders an Ethics Investigation Into Justice Department Lawyers

A federal judge today ordered an ethics investigation into Justice Department attorneys involved in a dispute over the Trump administration’s removal of hundreds of trees from Washington’s historic East Potomac Golf Links. The underlying controversy may sound unusually local, but the judge’s decision raises broader questions about how government lawyers represented the administration’s actions in court. It adds another legal dispute involving the Justice Department at an already politically sensitive moment.

Trump Backs Away From Recognizing Bolsonaro as Brazil’s Leader

Despite Trump’s political relationship with Brazil’s Bolsonaro family, administration officials say he is not planning to recognize defeated presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro as Brazil’s legitimate leader. Bolsonaro left Brazil after losing the election and has continued challenging the result. The decision suggests the White House is trying to avoid another major confrontation with Brazil even while allowing Bolsonaro and his family to enter the United States.

If a Midterm Race Turns Into a Certification War, Congress Could Have the Final Word

With election disputes already developing before November 3, attention is turning to what happens if a House or Senate result is formally contested. Under the Constitution, each chamber ultimately has authority to judge the elections and qualifications of its own members, meaning Congress can become the final arena for certain disputed congressional races. That normally obscure power suddenly matters much more this year as lawsuits and certification questions pile up before Election Day has even arrived.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race is entering its final stretch, and the latest polling suggests Democrat Abdul El-Sayed has gained a significant advantage over Republican Mike Rogers. With the November 3 election approaching, El-Sayed now leads Rogers by seven percentage points among likely voters, according to a statewide survey conducted October 26–27. The results show El-Sayed receiving 51% support compared with Rogers’s 44%, while just 3% of respondents remain undecided. For a contest that could influence the balance of power in Washington, those numbers represent an encouraging development for Democrats and an increasingly difficult challenge for Republicans. El-Sayed has moved beyond merely holding a narrow lead and now commands majority support in this particular survey. Rogers, meanwhile, faces the uncomfortable reality that the remaining undecided voters may not be enough to close the gap without persuading people who currently favor his opponent.

The new survey represents a notable shift from the beginning of October, when El-Sayed held a considerably smaller advantage. An earlier poll conducted by the same research organization showed the Democrat leading 45.6% to 41.4%, a margin of just 4.2 percentage points. In less than four weeks, El-Sayed’s support has climbed by more than five points, while Rogers has gained approximately three points. The Democratic candidate has therefore expanded his lead while both campaigns have been working to consolidate support ahead of Election Day. Researchers characterized El-Sayed as being in a strong position for victory, although polling is not a guarantee of an election outcome. The latest survey questioned 636 likely voters and carried a reported margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. That leaves room for uncertainty, but the movement between the two surveys suggests the Democrat has gained momentum during the campaign’s closing weeks.

Perhaps the most important development is El-Sayed’s growing advantage among independent voters, a group that frequently determines the outcome of competitive statewide elections. The latest survey shows independents favoring El-Sayed over Rogers by 52% to 38%, giving the Democrat a substantial 14-point advantage. Earlier in October, that margin stood at 46% to 34%, indicating that El-Sayed has increased his support among voters who do not identify with either major party. Both candidates have improved their standing with independents, but El-Sayed continues to maintain a meaningful lead. In a politically divided state such as Michigan, attracting voters beyond a party’s traditional base is often essential to winning statewide office.

Subscribe now

The figures suggest El-Sayed has found a message that appeals to a significant share of voters who may not automatically support Democratic candidates. For Rogers, the challenge is not simply energizing Republicans but convincing enough independent voters that he offers a better alternative.

Party loyalty is another area where El-Sayed appears to hold an advantage. The survey found that 94% of Democrats support him, compared with 91% of Republicans who support Rogers. A three-point difference may appear modest, but in a competitive election, even relatively small variations in party unity can influence the final result. El-Sayed’s ability to consolidate Democratic voters suggests that his campaign has largely succeeded in bringing together supporters after the August primary. Rogers has also secured overwhelming support from Republicans, but his slightly weaker numbers indicate that some voters within his own party remain uncommitted or are considering alternatives. The difference becomes more consequential when combined with El-Sayed’s lead among independents. A candidate who maintains stronger party loyalty while attracting more unaffiliated voters has a clear electoral advantage, provided those supporters actually turn out and cast their ballots.

The gender divide offers another revealing look at how Michigan voters are approaching the race. El-Sayed leads among women by a substantial 56% to 39%, a 17-point margin that could prove decisive if reflected in the final vote. Rogers performs better among men, leading 49% to 46%, but his three-point advantage is much narrower than El-Sayed’s lead among women. This imbalance creates a difficult mathematical problem for the Republican campaign. Even if Rogers maintains his edge with male voters, he would need either to reduce El-Sayed’s advantage among women or make substantial gains elsewhere to overcome the statewide deficit. The figures also illustrate how different demographic groups can respond to the same political contest in sharply different ways. The poll does not establish why individual voters prefer either candidate, but it makes clear that women’s support is a major component of El-Sayed’s current lead.

Age presents an equally striking divide. El-Sayed holds commanding advantages among voters between 18 and 44, while Rogers dominates among those aged 65 and older, leading that group 62% to 35%. The contrast reflects a familiar generational pattern in American politics, with younger voters leaning toward progressive candidates and older voters showing stronger support for Republicans. However, Michigan’s actual election outcome will depend not just on voter preferences but on which age groups participate in the greatest numbers. Older voters have historically been reliable participants in elections, meaning Rogers’s advantage among seniors could carry considerable weight. El-Sayed, on the other hand, stands to benefit if younger voters translate their stated preferences into ballots. The survey’s demographic breakdowns also come with greater statistical uncertainty because each subgroup contains fewer respondents than the overall sample. Still, the age differences reveal two candidates drawing strength from markedly different portions of the electorate.

Subscribe now

Early voting adds another layer of urgency to the campaign. In the latest survey, 28% of respondents said they had already voted or were voting absentee, compared with 11% in the earlier October poll. That increase reflects the progression of Michigan’s voting calendar, with absentee voting already underway and early in-person voting beginning shortly before the latest survey. For both campaigns, the growing share of voters participating before Election Day means opportunities to change minds are gradually narrowing. Once a ballot has been cast, campaign advertisements, debates and last-minute endorsements can no longer influence that particular vote. The figures do not establish how those early ballots were distributed between the candidates, but they demonstrate that the election is no longer merely a future event. A substantial portion of the electorate is already participating, making voter turnout operations and the mobilization of remaining supporters increasingly important.

The race carries national significance because the winner will succeed retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters, who announced in January 2025 that he would not seek another term. Peters’s departure created an open-seat contest in a state where both major parties have demonstrated an ability to win important elections. El-Sayed and Rogers emerged as their parties’ nominees following the August primaries, setting up a campaign between a progressive Democrat and a former Republican congressman. Their contest has attracted attention beyond Michigan because control of the U.S. Senate can hinge on a relatively small number of competitive races. A Democratic victory would preserve the party’s hold on the seat, while a Republican win would represent a significant pickup opportunity. With the broader balance of power in Washington at stake, neither party can afford to treat Michigan as a routine election.

The candidates have also faced one another in televised debates, including meetings on October 8 and October 21 that gave voters opportunities to compare their positions directly. Their discussions covered issues ranging from foreign policy to Michigan’s economy, jobs, the automotive industry and education. An earlier debate had been proposed for September 15, but Rogers declined to participate, saying he had not agreed to the anticipated format. The October debates provided important opportunities for both candidates to make their cases to undecided voters, although the survey does not establish whether those appearances caused the subsequent changes in support. Campaign momentum can reflect numerous factors, including advertising, voter outreach, public appearances and broader political conditions. What matters now is whether El-Sayed can preserve his advantage through the final days and whether Rogers can identify an effective way to reverse the trend before voting concludes.

Ultimately, the latest Michigan Senate poll presents a straightforward but consequential picture: Abdul El-Sayed is leading, Mike Rogers is trailing, and Election Day is approaching rapidly. El-Sayed’s seven-point advantage, majority support, stronger party consolidation and commanding margins among women and independents give him several reasons for confidence. Rogers retains substantial Republican backing and a strong advantage among older voters, leaving him with a possible path if turnout patterns differ from the poll’s assumptions. The survey’s margin of error and methodological limitations also mean that neither campaign should mistake a polling lead for a certified result. Michigan voters, not researchers or campaign strategists, will make the final decision on November 3. For now, however, the political momentum appears to favor El-Sayed, and Rogers faces the increasingly urgent task of turning a difficult polling picture into a competitive election. The final verdict belongs to the ballot box, but the clock is running down on the Republican’s opportunity to change the story.

Subscribe now

✍️

Seven points ahead.
Six days to go.

The polls are moving.
The pressure starts to show.

Women are choosing.
Independents are weighing.

The ballots are arriving.
The voters have the final saying.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Abdul El-Sayed leads Mike Rogers 51% to 44% in the latest Michigan Senate poll, expanding his advantage from 4.2 points earlier in October to seven points. The survey included 636 likely voters and reported a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

• El-Sayed leads among independents by 52% to 38% and among women by 56% to 39%. He also enjoys strong support from younger voters and has consolidated 94% of Democrats, while Rogers leads among men and voters aged 65 and older.

• With the November 3 election approaching, early and absentee voting are already underway, and the race remains nationally significant because it will determine who succeeds retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. El-Sayed has the polling advantage, but turnout and the final ballots will determine the winner.

Biting Fact Of The Day

75,001: That’s how many times gadget-reviewing YouTuber Kuba Klawiter was able to fold his iPhone Duo on a recent livestream before the device cracked.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Benjamin Netanyahu has spent nearly two decades at the center of Israeli political power, surviving scandals, wars, coalition collapses and repeated attempts to remove him from office. But following Tuesday’s election, the prime minister faces a particularly uncomfortable reality: his far-right coalition has lost its parliamentary majority, and Palestinian citizens of Israel may now hold the votes necessary to reshape the country’s political future. Rather than simply acknowledging the results and beginning the difficult work of coalition negotiations, Netanyahu has accused Arab Israeli political parties of benefiting from foreign-funded election manipulation. His allies are demanding investigations into alleged vote-buying, while opposition leaders accuse him of attempting to undermine an election that did not produce the outcome he wanted. The accusations have not been substantiated by the election officials and police representatives who have publicly addressed them. Apparently, losing a parliamentary majority is one thing; accepting that voters actually meant to take it away is another.

The numbers explain why Netanyahu’s political position has become so precarious. With nearly all ballots counted, his coalition secured 53 seats in Israel’s 120-member Knesset, falling eight seats short of the 61 required for a governing majority. The principal opposition bloc led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot won 48 seats, also leaving it unable to govern independently. The remaining 19 seats went to two Arab Israeli political groupings, the Joint List and Ra’am, marking a historic level of parliamentary representation for Palestinian citizens of Israel.

Those results have fundamentally changed the balance of power. For the first time in this political contest, Arab parties could play a decisive role in parliamentary votes that challenge Netanyahu’s control. The election did not deliver an outright governing majority to either major bloc, but it did deny Netanyahu the parliamentary dominance his coalition previously enjoyed. That distinction is central to understanding both the political uncertainty and the intensity of his response.

Subscribe now

Netanyahu’s Likud party has portrayed the Arab parties’ electoral success as the product of foreign interference, alleging that outside money helped finance vote-buying and improper voter mobilization. The party warned that cooperation between Jewish opposition politicians and Arab representatives could lead to foreign influence over parliament and what it described as the Islamization of Israel. These claims go well beyond raising specific concerns about election procedures. They suggest that the participation of Arab citizens in determining the country’s government is itself a danger. Yet the acting director general of Israel’s central elections committee, Dean Livneh, indicated that there appeared to be no basis for the allegations, while police officials described the voting process as relatively trouble-free. Allegations of electoral misconduct should be investigated when credible evidence exists, but a sweeping accusation involving an entire community requires more than political suspicion. So far, the publicly described evidence has not supported Netanyahu’s extraordinary claims.

The prime minister’s rhetoric has drawn criticism from figures who ordinarily occupy very different positions within Israeli politics. President Isaac Herzog urged political leaders not to tarnish an entire community that had exercised its democratic right to vote. Eisenkot accused Netanyahu and Likud of organizing a campaign to delegitimize the election results, warning that any investigation must be conducted impartially and must not delay the seating of the newly elected parliament. Yousef Jabareen, leader of the Joint List, accused Netanyahu of incitement and argued that the prime minister was refusing to accept the political choices made by Arab voters. Their objections reflect a basic distinction between investigating credible irregularities and treating an unfavorable election result as inherently suspicious. The former can protect the integrity of elections. The latter can erode public confidence in the process, particularly when accusations are directed at citizens whose political participation is already frequently contested.

The reaction from Netanyahu’s far-right allies has been even more aggressive. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called for the arrest of Arab party leaders, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich demanded that they face interrogation by Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency. These demands came as the allegations remained publicly unsubstantiated, raising concerns about the use of state security institutions in a partisan dispute. Shin Bet is responsible for addressing serious security threats, not resolving political disagreements simply because an incumbent government dislikes the election outcome. Deploying the language and machinery of national security against elected representatives requires an exceptionally strong factual and legal basis. Without one, such demands risk intimidating political participation and portraying an entire segment of the electorate as inherently suspect. Israel’s Palestinian citizens possess voting rights, and their representatives are entitled to participate in parliamentary politics under the same legal framework as other elected members.

Subscribe now

The unusually high turnout among Arab Israeli voters appears to have been one of the election’s defining developments. Palestinian citizens of Israel make up approximately one-fifth of the population, yet their political influence has often been constrained by divisions among parties, lower turnout and reluctance from major Jewish political blocs to cooperate with their representatives. This election produced a different result, driven in part by concerns over discrimination and the possibility of another term for politicians whose rhetoric toward Arab citizens has been deeply confrontational. In Nazareth, one of Israel’s largest predominantly Palestinian cities, voting was reportedly brisk, with few visible signs of misconduct. There were, however, accounts of ballot materials arriving only in Hebrew rather than both Hebrew and Arabic, along with allegations that monitors associated with far-right parties attempted procedural maneuvers that slowed voting. Those concerns deserve examination alongside any credible claims of wrongdoing elsewhere. Election integrity cannot be a principle applied selectively to the communities whose votes an incumbent finds inconvenient.

Netanyahu’s immediate political concern may be less about forming a new government than about losing control of parliament itself. Although Eisenkot’s opposition bloc and the Arab parties have ruled out a formal governing coalition, they have discussed cooperating on specific parliamentary votes. One possibility involves replacing Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a Netanyahu ally whose position gives him influence over parliamentary proceedings. Another involves advancing legislation supported across opposition parties, including a proposed independent commission to investigate the security failures preceding Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack. Netanyahu has resisted such an inquiry, making the prospect of an opposition-backed investigation particularly consequential. Even without a formal coalition, coordinated voting could weaken his ability to control the legislative agenda and subject his government’s decisions to greater scrutiny. The possibility that Arab representatives might help determine those outcomes appears to be a major source of the political confrontation.

The allegations of foreign interference have also produced an awkward controversy involving Qatar. Although Likud’s public statements did not clearly identify the alleged foreign sponsor, accounts surrounding the dispute pointed toward the Gulf monarchy as a suspected source of funding. Qatar has categorically denied involvement in Israel’s election. Former prime minister Naftali Bennett highlighted what he considered an inconsistency in Netanyahu’s position, noting that political advisers associated with the prime minister have themselves faced accusations of receiving Qatari money to improve the country’s public image. Those allegations involving advisers are separate from the election claims and must be assessed on their own evidence. Nevertheless, Bennett’s criticism illustrates the political difficulty of invoking foreign influence as an explanation for electoral defeat while facing unresolved questions about relationships within one’s own political circle. Allegations of outside interference deserve serious scrutiny, but they should not become convenient weapons deployed only when they serve the interests of those in power.

The broader dispute exposes longstanding tensions over the place of Palestinian citizens within Israel’s political system. Arab voters are legally entitled to elect representatives, and those representatives hold seats in the same parliament as their Jewish counterparts. Yet Netanyahu’s campaign has portrayed the prospect of Jewish opposition parties cooperating with Arab legislators as a threat to the country’s national identity and security. That framing creates a troubling political contradiction: Arab citizens may cast ballots, but their votes are depicted as dangerous when they become influential enough to affect who governs. Opposition politicians face their own difficult choices, since some conservative members of Eisenkot’s bloc remain unwilling to enter formal partnerships with Arab parties. The result is a parliament in which the arithmetic of political power is clear, but the willingness to recognize that power remains contested. For Arab voters who participated in record numbers, the central question is whether their electoral success will translate into meaningful representation or become the basis for further attempts to marginalize them.

Ultimately, Israel’s election has produced neither a decisive victory for Netanyahu’s opponents nor a mandate for his coalition to continue governing as before. It has produced a divided parliament, a weakened incumbent and an unprecedented opportunity for Arab Israeli parties to influence national politics. The appropriate response to that result is lawful investigation of any credible irregularities, transparent certification procedures and political negotiations conducted within established democratic rules. Netanyahu is entitled to challenge specific violations if evidence supports them, just as opposition leaders are entitled to organize parliamentary majorities that reduce his power. What cannot be established through accusation alone is that an election was stolen simply because a historically marginalized community voted in unexpectedly large numbers. After 19 years in office across three decades, Netanyahu understands the mechanics of political survival better than almost anyone in Israeli politics. This time, however, the question is whether he can preserve his position through legitimate parliamentary support rather than persuading the public to distrust the voters who changed the balance of power.

Subscribe now

✍️

The ballots were counted.
The majority was gone.

The voters had spoken.
The accusations rolled on.

When the powerful fear the count,
They question who may vote.

But democracy belongs to the people,
Not the hands that hold the throne.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Netanyahu’s coalition lost its parliamentary majority, winning 53 of 120 seats, while Eisenkot’s opposition bloc secured 48. The Joint List and Ra’am won a combined 19 seats, giving Arab Israeli parties unprecedented influence over the new parliament.

• Netanyahu and his allies alleged foreign-backed vote-buying and demanded security investigations, but election officials and police representatives indicated that the publicly described claims lacked a factual basis. President Isaac Herzog and opposition leaders criticized the rhetoric directed at Arab voters and their elected representatives.

• The election’s aftermath could determine whether opposition parties cooperate to replace the Knesset speaker and pursue an independent investigation into the failures preceding October 7. More broadly, the dispute raises questions about electoral legitimacy, equal political participation and whether parliamentary outcomes will be respected when they weaken an incumbent government.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Justice Department Escalates Alaska Election Investigation With New Subpoenas

The Justice Department has issued new grand jury subpoenas as it investigates allegations surrounding Alaska’s unusually chaotic Senate race. The controversy centers on claims that people connected to Democrat Mary Peltola helped recruit another candidate named Dan Sullivan, potentially confusing voters and hurting Republican Senator Dan Sullivan. Peltola’s campaign denies involvement. The dispute has now grown from a campaign controversy into federal, state and congressional investigations.

Federal Judge Rejects Trump’s Attempt to Set Aside California Ballots

A federal judge today rejected the Trump administration’s effort to force California to segregate ballots from as many as 20,000 voters suspected by the government of being noncitizens. Judge David Carter warned that imposing the requirement while voting is already underway could disrupt the election and potentially disenfranchise legitimate voters. More than 3.7 million Californians had already voted when the ruling came down. The Justice Department says it plans to appeal.

FBI and ICE Agents Will Not Be Sent to Monitor Polling Places

The Justice Department confirmed today that FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel will not serve as polling-place monitors during the midterms. The announcement comes amid intense scrutiny over how extensively the federal government will involve itself in election administration this year. The decision removes one particularly controversial possibility just days before Americans head to the polls.

More Than 39 Million Americans Have Already Voted

Early voting is surging, with more than 39 million ballots already cast nationwide. Election researchers are seeing particularly strong participation among Black, Hispanic and unaffiliated voters in several states, while Texas alone has recorded roughly 5.5 million early votes through Wednesday. High early turnout doesn’t tell us which party will ultimately benefit, but it does show that voter engagement is running unusually high heading into Tuesday.

White House Quietly Reopens Communication With Iran

Trump said today that Vice President JD Vance has contacted Iran, describing the outreach as related to getting medical supplies into the country. Iranian media confirmed that Tehran received a letter from Vance but said the government has not yet responded. The contact is significant because U.S. officials are simultaneously warning regional allies to prepare for the possibility of renewed military action after the midterms.

Federal Judge Blocks Part of Trump’s Medicaid Work-Requirement Policy

A federal judge today blocked the administration from enforcing a rule that would have narrowed medical exemptions from new Medicaid work requirements. The dispute concerns which people with serious medical conditions can avoid requirements to work, volunteer or participate in other qualifying activities to maintain coverage. The ruling represents a setback for one of the administration’s major changes to Medicaid and could affect beneficiaries across the country.

Farmers Are Funding Ads Against Republicans in Rural America

A farmer-backed political organization has spent about $2.9 million targeting Republican candidates in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Iowa. The ads criticize candidates over animal-welfare legislation, Trump’s tariffs and policies the group blames for increasing agricultural costs. The campaign is noteworthy because rural America has been a major source of Republican support, yet farmers are dealing with expensive diesel and fertilizer alongside weaker export demand.

Sportsbooks Pour More Than $80 Million Into Midterm Politics

Four major sports-betting companies have put more than $80 million into political efforts ahead of the midterms. Their goal is increasingly political as well as commercial: expand legalized sports betting while protecting the industry from rapidly growing prediction markets. It is another example of how industry money is flooding state and federal politics this election cycle, often around issues that receive far less public attention than the congressional races themselves.

Mississippi’s Senate Race Is Suddenly Drowning in Attack Ads

Mississippi has become one of the stranger late-breaking Senate battlegrounds. Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith is facing a barrage of advertising, including a heavily aired spot featuring a Jeffrey Epstein survivor criticizing her vote against releasing Epstein-related files. Advertising data show that negative messages about Hyde-Smith have dominated the airwaves during the closing stretch, bringing unexpected national attention to a race Republicans once had little reason to worry about.

Election Misinformation Is Surging Just Days Before Americans Vote

Election officials are pushing back today against a fresh wave of viral claims about ballot envelopes, voter identification rules and supposedly malfunctioning voting machines. Investigators have found ordinary explanations for several widely shared examples, including accessibility features on California ballot envelopes and legitimate two-page ballots in New York. With millions already voting, officials are urging people to verify questionable claims with their local election authorities rather than relying on viral social-media posts.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Conservative commentator Scott Jennings has spent plenty of time criticizing progressives, but his latest political attack could become an extraordinarily expensive legal headache. Progressive streamer Hasan Piker has filed a $72.5 million defamation lawsuit against Jennings, accusing him of deliberately spreading a manipulated video that falsely portrayed Piker as advocating the lynching of Black Americans. The 38-page complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that Jennings did more than misinterpret an inflammatory statement.

According to Piker’s attorneys, he presented footage assembled from separate livestreams, attributed words to Piker that he never actually said and used the resulting distortion to accuse him of supporting racial violence. Jennings has not yet publicly provided a substantive response to the allegations described in the lawsuit. The dispute raises a question that should concern anyone who consumes political commentary: when does attacking someone’s opinions cross the line into inventing opinions they never held?

The controversy began with an August 11 episode of Jennings’ show, during which he played footage from Piker’s livestreams and described him as a radical socialist associated with Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Jennings accused Piker of calling for Black voters to be lynched and urged his audience to listen to the recording as evidence of what socialists supposedly wanted for the Black community. It was an extraordinarily serious allegation, especially given America’s history of racial terror and the political sensitivity surrounding Michigan’s competitive Senate election. The video was also circulated on social media, where it reportedly accumulated approximately three million views. According to Piker’s complaint, the footage remained publicly available even after his attorneys challenged its authenticity. Once an accusation that explosive reaches millions of people, correcting the record becomes considerably more difficult than spreading the original claim.

Subscribe now

The central dispute concerns what Piker actually said during a livestream in October 2024. He was reacting to a debate between two Black political commentators, one liberal and one conservative, during which the conservative participant criticized progressive prosecutors. Piker responded with exaggerated, sarcastic remarks suggesting that the commentator’s position amounted to longing for an era of racial discrimination and lynchings. His point, according to the lawsuit, was to ridicule what he considered the implications of the conservative argument, not to endorse the Ku Klux Klan or racial violence. But the video presented by Jennings allegedly removed the surrounding discussion, rearranged footage from three separate livestreams and displayed a caption suggesting that Piker had directly advocated returning to a time when lynchings occurred. That distinction is fundamental. Quoting someone sarcastically criticizing an idea is not the same as proving that person supports it.

Piker’s legal team argues that Jennings transformed a condemnation of racism into an endorsement of racism through selective editing and misleading presentation. The complaint alleges that the footage was not merely shortened for convenience but manipulated in ways that fundamentally altered its meaning. It also challenges the caption accompanying the clip, which attributed a statement to Piker that his attorneys say he never made in that form. If the evidence supports those allegations, the issue becomes considerably more serious than a commentator expressing an unfavorable opinion. Political figures and public personalities routinely face criticism, mockery and harsh interpretations of their statements. Those freedoms are essential to public debate. But presenting fabricated quotations or materially misleading recordings as authentic evidence can raise legitimate defamation concerns, particularly when the resulting accusation is capable of seriously damaging someone’s reputation.

The lawsuit seeks $27.5 million in compensatory damages and another $45 million in punitive damages, bringing the total demand to $72.5 million. That figure is striking, although filing a lawsuit for a particular amount does not mean a court will award it. Piker will need to establish the elements of defamation under the applicable law, including that the challenged statements were false and legally actionable. Because he is a prominent public commentator, he may also need to meet the demanding actual-malice standard, showing that Jennings knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for their truth. His attorneys contend that Jennings deliberately promoted the manipulated material, but those assertions remain allegations until tested through litigation. The outcome will depend on evidence, including what Jennings knew about the footage, how it was obtained and whether he had reason to question its accuracy before broadcasting it.

Subscribe now

Another significant element involves what happened after Piker’s attorneys challenged the broadcast. According to the complaint, his legal team sent Jennings a written demand in August requesting a retraction. Jennings’ lawyers reportedly acknowledged receiving the correspondence and indicated that a response would follow, but Piker’s attorneys say no substantive response was provided. The disputed social media post also reportedly remained available as of Wednesday. That sequence could become relevant if the case proceeds, particularly in evaluating whether Jennings had an opportunity to investigate the accuracy of his claims after being notified of the alleged problems. A commentator is not automatically liable simply because someone demands a correction, and a refusal to retract does not independently prove defamation. Nevertheless, when an accusation involves fabricated words and support for racial violence, the decision to leave it uncorrected deserves scrutiny.

The political context makes the controversy even more combustible. Piker has supported Democratic candidates, including El-Sayed, who is running in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests. Jennings portrayed Piker as closely associated with the Michigan candidate, creating an opportunity to connect El-Sayed with allegations of extremism. Piker’s complaint suggests that undermining El-Sayed’s standing among Black voters may have been part of the political incentive behind the broadcast. It also notes that Jennings was reportedly being considered for the position of White House press secretary around the same period. Those circumstances may help explain why Piker’s attorneys believe the attack was politically motivated, but they do not independently establish Jennings’ intent. What they do illustrate is how easily a controversy involving a political influencer can be used to attack a candidate through association, even when the candidate is not responsible for the influencer’s statements.

Piker himself is hardly a stranger to controversy. With millions of followers across Twitch, YouTube and Instagram, he has built an enormous audience through outspoken progressive commentary, frequently criticizing conservatives, American foreign policy and political institutions. He has also faced criticism from Jewish organizations over statements they consider antisemitic and his commentary about the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. Those criticisms are part of the public debate surrounding his political positions and should not be dismissed merely because he has filed a lawsuit. But controversial opinions do not eliminate a person’s right to challenge false factual allegations. Someone can strongly disagree with Piker, criticize his rhetoric or question his judgment without claiming he supports lynching if the evidence does not substantiate that accusation. The same standard should apply to conservative and progressive commentators alike.

The case also exposes a larger problem in modern political media, where short video clips can become more influential than the full conversations from which they were taken. A few seconds of footage, accompanied by an inflammatory caption, can circulate to millions of viewers before anyone investigates whether the recording accurately represents what happened. Sarcasm, irony and criticism are especially vulnerable to manipulation because their meaning often depends on the surrounding conversation. Remove that context, and a statement condemning an idea can appear to endorse it. Add a dramatic headline, a confident accusation and a politically convenient target, and the distortion can quickly become accepted as fact by people who never encounter the original recording. This is not simply a problem of partisan commentary. It is a problem of information integrity in an environment where outrage travels faster than verification.

Ultimately, the lawsuit between Piker and Jennings will test whether the allegations of manipulation can be substantiated and whether the challenged broadcast crossed the legal boundary between protected political criticism and actionable defamation. Jennings deserves the opportunity to defend his reporting, explain his reliance on the footage and challenge the claims made against him. Piker deserves the opportunity to demonstrate that he was falsely portrayed as supporting one of the most horrific forms of racial violence in American history. The courts, not social media audiences, will determine whether the legal requirements for liability have been met. But the underlying principle is already worth remembering: political disagreement does not require manufacturing evidence, and freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from accountability for knowingly false factual claims. If commentators want the public to trust their criticism, the very least they can do is make sure the words they attribute to someone were actually spoken.

Subscribe now

✍️

A sentence was clipped.
The meaning was flipped.

A caption was added.
An accusation traveled.

Truth needs the whole conversation.
Outrage needs only a few seconds.

The courtroom will decide
What the camera tried to hide.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Hasan Piker has filed a $72.5 million defamation lawsuit against Scott Jennings, alleging that the conservative commentator broadcast manipulated footage and falsely accused him of advocating the lynching of Black Americans. The lawsuit seeks $27.5 million in compensatory damages and $45 million in punitive damages.

• Piker’s attorneys argue that his original comments were sarcastically criticizing another commentator’s views, not endorsing racial violence. They allege that footage from separate livestreams was rearranged, essential context was removed and a misleading quotation was attributed to him. These claims remain subject to legal examination.

• The dispute highlights the dangers of selectively edited political videos, particularly when accusations spread to millions of viewers and become entangled with competitive elections. The case will ultimately depend on whether Piker can prove that Jennings made false, defamatory statements with the legally required degree of fault.

Biting Fact Of The Day

During World War II the Australian Armed Forces bought Vegemite in bulk, in part because it's so nutritionally dense.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Iran Rejects the Latest Ideas for Ending the War

A new diplomatic effort to end the U.S.-Israel war with Iran has hit another obstacle. Qatari mediators presented Tehran with new ideas for an agreement, but a senior Iranian official described them as unacceptable and said they did not amount to a genuine offer. The negotiations have enormous domestic consequences for the United States because the war’s cost, military commitment and effect on energy prices have all become political issues heading into the midterms.

Trump Administration Issues More Than 100 Subpoenas in Massive Voter Investigation

The Trump administration has issued more than 100 subpoenas seeking information on tens of thousands of voters across at least 13 states as part of an investigation into possible noncitizen voting. The effort is considerably broader than previously known and is arriving less than a week before the midterms. State officials and voting-rights advocates are questioning both the scope and timing, while the administration says it is enforcing federal election law.

Trump and Obama Hit the Campaign Trail in Two Critical States

Donald Trump and Barack Obama are both campaigning today, underscoring how seriously both parties are taking the final days before November 3. Trump is heading to Ohio, while Obama is campaigning in Georgia, with consequential congressional contests at stake in both states. The two former rivals aren’t running themselves, of course, but both parties are betting their biggest political celebrities can motivate voters who might otherwise sit out a midterm.

Russia-Linked AI Disinformation Is Targeting U.S. Senate Candidates

Researchers have identified what they believe are Russia-linked disinformation videos targeting Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown in Ohio and James Talarico in Texas. The videos use real people’s identities and apparently AI-generated or manipulated material to spread damaging allegations those people say they never made. Some original posts have been removed, but copies continue circulating, demonstrating just how difficult AI-driven election misinformation can be to contain once it gets moving.

Michigan’s Senate Race Becomes a National Fight Over Trump’s Attacks on Muslim Politicians

Michigan’s open Senate contest between Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers is attracting fresh national attention as Trump intensifies attacks on El-Sayed and other Muslim political figures. El-Sayed’s campaign has accused Trump of using anti-Muslim rhetoric to energize Republican voters, while Republicans are also targeting his progressive policy positions. Beyond Michigan, the race has become a test of how identity, culture and ideology are influencing the closing days of the midterms.

Republicans Are Privately Worried About a Turnout Problem

Senior Republican strategists are expressing growing concern that some Trump voters simply won’t participate when Trump himself isn’t on the ballot. Their internal picture varies sharply by state: operatives see improvement in Iowa but increasing difficulties in Ohio, Alaska and Kansas. With congressional margins potentially extremely narrow, getting occasional voters to actually cast ballots has become as important as persuading undecided voters.

The Iran War Has Now Cost the U.S. Military More Than $47 Billion

Pentagon data obtained by Reuters puts the military cost of the Iran war above $47 billion so far. That’s more than 25% higher than the Defense Department’s July estimate, illustrating how quickly the price tag has grown. The figure gives Congress another major issue to confront after the election, particularly as lawmakers debate defense spending and the broader financial consequences of the conflict.

Justice Department Scrutinizes Nvidia’s $12.93 Billion Hugging Face Deal

The Justice Department is examining how Nvidia’s proposed $12.93 billion purchase of AI platform Hugging Face could affect competition. The inquiry comes alongside the government’s broader antitrust scrutiny of Nvidia and its enormous influence over the artificial-intelligence industry. Washington’s approach to Big Tech and AI has become an increasingly important policy question as lawmakers wrestle with whether existing competition laws are sufficient for a rapidly consolidating industry.

Trump’s Trade Fight With Canada Isn’t Getting Much Easier

Canadian officials say there has been only limited progress in negotiations with Washington over U.S. tariffs affecting Canadian steel and automobiles. Prime Minister Mark Carney says talks have intensified somewhat, but major differences remain. The dispute matters inside the United States as well: Trump’s tariffs are a centerpiece of his economic strategy, while businesses and political opponents continue debating their effects on American manufacturing, jobs and consumer prices.

Democrats Are Already Fighting Over What Happens If They Win the House

A group of progressive House Democrats informally known as “The Bloc” is preparing to use its leverage if Democrats capture the chamber next week. Members are discussing using a speaker election, procedural votes and other pressure points to push the caucus toward progressive priorities, potentially complicating Hakeem Jeffries’ ability to manage a narrow majority. Election Day hasn’t arrived yet, but one faction of the Democratic Party is already preparing for the internal battle that could follow it.

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Linda McMahon has apparently discovered one government expense worth preserving: her own office furniture budget. The education secretary, who has been tasked by Donald Trump with dismantling the very department she leads, is planning to spend approximately $43,278 on new furnishings for her Washington office. The proposed purchases include a desk, conference table, chairs and other items deemed necessary for her new workspace. This comes as the Trump administration continues to celebrate sweeping reductions in education spending, staffing and federal oversight. The contradiction is difficult to ignore. While thousands of federal employees have faced uncertainty and education programs have been shuffled between agencies, the person overseeing the department’s dismantling has concluded that her office requires a rather expensive makeover. Apparently, government spending is a terrible burden on taxpayers until someone needs a conference table that complements the new surroundings.

The justification for the furniture purchase is almost as remarkable as the price tag itself. McMahon’s office informed Congress that her existing furniture was worn out and could not be properly incorporated into the new office because of configuration and aesthetic concerns. In other words, the furniture apparently fails to meet the standards of the department’s new surroundings. There may be legitimate practical reasons to replace certain items when an office relocates, but spending more than $43,000 while championing aggressive budget reductions invites obvious questions about priorities.

Was every item beyond repair? Could existing government furniture have been reused? Were less expensive alternatives considered? The information provided does not answer those questions. What it does reveal is an administration willing to defend a substantial executive office expense while presenting cuts elsewhere as essential fiscal discipline.

Subscribe now

The spending controversy follows McMahon’s announcement that the Department of Education would relocate from its longtime headquarters in the Lyndon B. Johnson building to a smaller downtown Washington location. The new offices occupy space previously used by the United States Agency for International Development, another federal institution that the Trump administration moved to dismantle. McMahon promoted the relocation as a cost-saving measure that would save taxpayers approximately $4.8 million annually. Those projected savings are significant, and the proposed furniture expense represents a relatively small portion of that annual amount. But fiscal responsibility is not simply about whether one expense is smaller than another. It also involves demonstrating that public money is being spent prudently, especially when the administration has made eliminating waste a central justification for its policies. A government cannot reasonably expect applause for cutting costs while refusing to explain why its leadership requires furnishings costing more than many Americans earn in a year.

The Department of Education has defended the purchase by arguing that offices need furniture to function. Its spokesperson, Savannah Newhouse, emphasized that employees require places to sit, work and conduct meetings, just as they would in private businesses. That observation is perfectly reasonable, although it conveniently avoids the central question: why does equipping one secretary’s office require nearly $43,000? Nobody seriously expects the education secretary to conduct meetings while sitting on the floor or balancing paperwork on a cardboard box. The issue is whether an administration committed to austerity should demonstrate greater restraint when spending taxpayer money on executive accommodations. The defense also raises a broader question about how the administration defines waste. A functioning desk is apparently an indispensable government investment, while entire divisions responsible for education oversight are treated as expendable bureaucratic luxuries.

The furniture dispute becomes more troubling when placed alongside McMahon’s broader mission. Shortly after returning to the White House in 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing her to take steps toward closing the Department of Education. McMahon, a former executive at World Wrestling Entertainment, was effectively appointed to lead an institution while overseeing efforts to reduce its authority and responsibilities. The department was created by Congress, meaning a president cannot simply eliminate it through an executive order.

Subscribe now

Congress would need to authorize its formal dissolution, and lawmakers have not done so. Instead, the administration has pursued a strategy of reducing staffing, shifting responsibilities and diminishing the department’s operational role. The result is a federal agency that continues to exist legally while being substantially weakened administratively. It is a peculiar management philosophy: shrink the institution, scatter its responsibilities and then invest in new furniture for the person supervising the process.

The staffing reductions have been particularly dramatic. The administration has cut nearly half of the department’s workforce, fundamentally changing the agency’s ability to perform its responsibilities. Federal employees who previously administered programs, monitored compliance and supported education initiatives have seen their positions eliminated or placed under pressure. The administration argues that reducing bureaucracy will improve efficiency and return authority to states and local communities. Critics, however, question whether those reductions will weaken federal oversight and make it harder for families, schools and students to obtain assistance. The long-term consequences remain uncertain, particularly as responsibilities are transferred between agencies with different priorities and expertise. What is already clear is that the department’s transformation has involved far more than a routine office relocation. It represents a substantial restructuring of the federal government’s role in American education.

Among the most consequential changes are the transfers of responsibilities traditionally managed by the Department of Education. Special education services have been moved to the Department of Health and Human Services, while civil rights enforcement responsibilities have been transferred to the Department of Justice. These functions affect students with disabilities, families seeking educational accommodations and individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in schools. Moving such responsibilities does not automatically mean those protections disappear, but it raises legitimate concerns about continuity, specialized expertise and accountability. Families navigating special education requirements already face complicated systems, and major administrative changes can create additional uncertainty. Likewise, civil rights enforcement requires consistent oversight and clear procedures. The question is whether these transfers will preserve effective services or simply make federal education protections more difficult to access.

Subscribe now

Trump and McMahon insist that dismantling the department will empower states and eliminate unnecessary federal interference. The argument appeals to Americans who believe educational decisions should be made closer to home, but it overlooks an important reality: states and local school districts already control most public education decisions. They establish curricula, manage schools, employ teachers and determine much of how education is delivered. The federal department’s responsibilities are more focused on administering certain funding programs, collecting education data and enforcing federal protections. Eliminating or transferring those responsibilities does not automatically produce better classrooms, stronger academic outcomes or more parental involvement. It could reduce administrative costs, but it could also create gaps in oversight or complicate the delivery of services. Genuine education reform requires evaluating those trade-offs rather than assuming that fewer federal employees necessarily mean better schools.

The administration’s approach also exposes a familiar problem in political debates about government spending: the tendency to celebrate cuts without fully examining what they accomplish. Reducing office space can save money. Eliminating redundant procedures can improve efficiency. Replacing damaged equipment can sometimes be justified. None of those propositions is inherently unreasonable. But a serious cost-saving agenda should be transparent about both expenses and consequences. If McMahon’s new furniture is necessary, taxpayers deserve an explanation of the purchasing decisions and why existing resources cannot meet the need. If eliminating education positions produces savings, the public deserves evidence that essential functions remain effective. The same standards should apply whether the expense involves a conference chair, a federal employee or a program serving students with disabilities. Fiscal discipline loses credibility when it appears to be enforced most aggressively on everyone except those making the decisions.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding McMahon’s proposed furniture purchase is not about pretending that $43,000 will determine the future of American education. Against a federal budget measured in trillions, it is a relatively modest sum. Its significance lies in the message it sends about leadership, priorities and consistency. The administration has repeatedly argued that government must operate with fewer resources, fewer employees and less federal involvement in education. Yet the secretary overseeing that transformation is seeking an expensive upgrade to her own workspace, justified partly by aesthetic compatibility. Americans are entitled to ask whether the same scrutiny applied to education programs is being applied to executive spending. McMahon may eventually succeed in making the department smaller, but a smaller department is not necessarily a better one. If the administration wants to demonstrate genuine fiscal responsibility, it should begin by showing that its leaders are willing to live by the standards they impose on everyone else. After all, it is difficult to sell the public on austerity when the person delivering the message is shopping for a $43,000 office makeover.

Subscribe now

✍️

Cut the staff.
Move the desks.

Trim the programs.
Approve the checks.

The classroom counts every dollar.
The executive suite counts its chairs.

When austerity reaches Washington,
Some offices apparently get a pass.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Education Secretary Linda McMahon is planning approximately $43,278 in new office furniture purchases while overseeing sweeping reductions at the Department of Education. Officials say the existing furniture is worn out and unsuitable for the new office space, but the expense raises questions about spending priorities.

• McMahon previously announced that relocating the department to a smaller building would save taxpayers approximately $4.8 million annually. The administration’s commitment to fiscal discipline makes transparency and consistency especially important.

• The Trump administration has nearly halved the department’s workforce and transferred major responsibilities, including special education services and civil rights enforcement, to other agencies. The larger question is whether reducing federal education bureaucracy will improve services or undermine protections and support for students and families.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Brazil’s Bolsonaro dynasty has spent years presenting itself as the country’s last line of defense against corruption, political instability and the supposed dangers of the left. Now, following a bruising presidential election defeat, the family’s latest chapter looks less like a political comeback and more like an international escape drama. Far-right senator Flávio Bolsonaro, who lost Sunday’s presidential election to incumbent Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has reportedly left Brazil and is attempting to reach the United States. His apparent departure comes after he failed to surrender his passport as ordered by Brazil’s Supreme Court in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation.

Multiple accounts indicate that his destination is Florida, where allies say he intends to seek political asylum. His precise whereabouts and travel route, however, have not been independently established. For a politician who recently asked nearly half the country to trust him with the presidency, disappearing just as authorities demand his passport is a particularly unfortunate way to demonstrate confidence in the rule of law.

The timing of Bolsonaro’s reported departure has raised serious questions about whether he deliberately attempted to evade Brazilian authorities. Shortly after the election results became clear, a Supreme Court justice ordered the cancellation of his passport as part of a criminal investigation. Bolsonaro was instructed to surrender the document to federal police by 11 a.m. Tuesday, but he failed to appear. He had not been publicly seen since Monday, fueling speculation that he had already crossed Brazil’s borders. People close to the Bolsonaro family reportedly indicated that he was traveling toward the United States, while other accounts suggested he had first entered Argentina. Brazilian federal police have been attempting to establish whether Argentine immigration authorities recorded his entry. The uncertainty surrounding his movements has transformed an already contentious election aftermath into a cross-border legal and political controversy.

Subscribe now

The reported escape route sounds almost absurdly elaborate. One account suggests Bolsonaro crossed into Argentina on foot before arranging onward transportation to the United States. Another indicates that a private aircraft was expected to depart from Puerto Iguazú, near the Brazilian border, but that the plan changed after details of his movements became public. Family allies have reportedly said that lawyers helped organize the departure and that the Trump administration had been informed of his intention to seek asylum. Bolsonaro also holds Italian citizenship, adding another potential complication to questions about his travel documents and legal status. None of these details establishes that he has successfully entered the United States or obtained asylum. Still, the picture emerging is of a defeated presidential candidate whose immediate priority may be finding a country willing to receive him rather than remaining in Brazil to address the legal proceedings awaiting him.

At the center of the crisis is a major criminal investigation involving allegations of money laundering connected to betting companies. Brazilian federal police are examining whether Bolsonaro participated in a suspected scheme involving approximately $905 million. The investigation has not established his guilt, and the allegations must be evaluated through the legal process. Nevertheless, the scale of the suspected financial activity explains why authorities are treating the matter seriously and why the passport surrender order carried significant weight. Bolsonaro has also faced longstanding scrutiny over allegations involving the alleged diversion of salaries from employees in his political offices. Those earlier controversies contributed to questions about his integrity even before he became the family’s presidential candidate. For someone campaigning on the political legacy of a movement that frequently denounces corruption, the accumulation of unresolved allegations presents an obvious credibility problem.

Bolsonaro’s reported flight is particularly striking because he publicly denied considering such a move just one day earlier. Responding to the cancellation of his passport, he insisted that leaving Brazil had never crossed his mind. Yet by Tuesday, political allies were reportedly describing an international journey toward Florida and preparations for an asylum request. That contradiction does not, by itself, establish exactly what happened or when the decision to leave was made. It does, however, make the senator’s public reassurances difficult to reconcile with the accounts coming from people close to his family. Meanwhile, lawmakers from Lula’s Workers’ Party have asked the Supreme Court to order his arrest and seek an Interpol Red Notice. Such a notice would request international assistance in locating and potentially provisionally arresting him, but it would not automatically constitute a worldwide arrest warrant.

Subscribe now

The turmoil extends well beyond Flávio. His father, former president Jair Bolsonaro, is under house arrest following his involvement in an attempted coup, while his brother Eduardo has been living in the United States. Eduardo also faces an outstanding Brazilian arrest warrant after receiving a four-year prison sentence for attempting to interfere in his father’s legal proceedings by lobbying Trump to impose sanctions on the judges involved. The family that once portrayed itself as the embodiment of Brazilian patriotism now finds several of its most prominent members entangled in criminal proceedings or living outside the country. That does not mean every member of the family is guilty of every allegation made against them, but it does illustrate the extraordinary legal and political turmoil surrounding a movement that dominated Brazil’s right wing for much of the past decade.

Flávio’s defeat also raises difficult questions about the future of Bolsonarismo, the far-right movement built around his father’s personality and political identity. Jair Bolsonaro’s unexpected presidential victory in 2018 transformed Brazilian conservatism, pushing traditional right-wing parties and leaders into the background. Loyalty to the Bolsonaro family became a defining feature of the movement, often overshadowing ideological differences or disagreements over policy. But Sunday’s election suggests that the family’s political inheritance may no longer guarantee victory. Flávio received 48.21 percent of the vote, demonstrating that the movement still commands enormous support, even in defeat. At the same time, Lula’s victory indicates that a substantial portion of the electorate remains unwilling to return the presidency to the Bolsonaro political machine. The result leaves Brazil deeply divided while creating an opening for conservatives who believe the right needs leadership beyond one family.

That potential leadership struggle was already developing before the election. Flávio was reportedly reluctant to run for president, believing that remaining in the Senate would offer a safer political future. His brother Eduardo had been viewed as the family’s preferred candidate, but his presence in the United States complicated those plans. Flávio eventually became the standard-bearer despite concerns about his political appeal and record. Over more than two decades in public office, he developed a reputation for limited legislative accomplishments and struggled to establish the charisma that helped his father mobilize supporters. His earlier attempt to become mayor of Rio de Janeiro ended in a fourth-place finish after a campaign remembered partly for his fainting during a televised debate. Even before the current controversy, his candidacy appeared to depend heavily on the Bolsonaro surname rather than an independently compelling political identity.

With Flávio potentially absent from Brazil’s political stage, other conservative figures may now compete to inherit the movement’s enormous voter base. Former first lady Michelle Bolsonaro, recently elected to the Senate, has developed political ambitions of her own and enjoys considerable support among conservative voters. São Paulo Governor Tarcísio de Freitas is another prominent figure who could offer the right a path beyond the Bolsonaro family’s internal struggles. Meanwhile, Jair Bolsonaro’s sons Carlos and Jair Renan, both elected to Congress, remain politically active and reportedly have strained relationships with their stepmother. Those tensions could intensify as the family confronts the possibility of losing control over the political organization it created. For years, the Bolsonaro name functioned as a unifying symbol for Brazil’s far right. It may now become the center of a bitter succession battle involving personal rivalries, competing ambitions and disagreements over the movement’s future.

Ultimately, Flávio Bolsonaro’s reported departure represents more than the dramatic aftermath of a lost election. It exposes the tension between a political movement that demands loyalty to its leaders and the democratic institutions responsible for holding those leaders accountable. Bolsonaro is entitled to defend himself against criminal allegations, challenge judicial decisions through lawful procedures and pursue whatever legal remedies are available to him. What he cannot reasonably expect is that losing an election or facing an investigation should automatically entitle him to escape scrutiny. The full circumstances of his reported flight remain unclear, and his legal future will depend on developments in Brazil and potentially abroad. But the political lesson is already emerging. Brazil’s far right may remain powerful, yet its future increasingly depends on whether it can develop leadership and institutions that extend beyond the personal fortunes of the Bolsonaro family. Losing an election is part of democracy. Treating defeat as a reason to flee the country is something else entirely.

Subscribe now

✍️

The ballots were counted.
The victory was denied.

The passport was demanded.
The politician disappeared.

Power once ran through the family.
Now the family runs from its troubles.

Democracy stays to face tomorrow.
The defeated must decide whether to stay.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Flávio Bolsonaro reportedly left Brazil after losing the presidential election to Lula and missing a court-ordered deadline to surrender his passport. Accounts suggest he traveled through Argentina toward the United States, where allies say he intends to seek political asylum, although his precise movements remain uncertain.

• Brazilian authorities are investigating Bolsonaro over possible involvement in an approximately $905 million money-laundering scheme connected to betting companies. He has not been found guilty in that investigation, but his reported departure has prompted lawmakers to seek his arrest and international assistance in locating him.

• The controversy deepens the crisis facing the Bolsonaro political dynasty, with Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest and Eduardo Bolsonaro living in the United States amid his own legal troubles. Despite Flávio receiving more than 48 percent of the presidential vote, his defeat could accelerate a struggle over who will lead Brazil’s far right in the years ahead.

Biting Fact Of The Day

Deep in Antarctic waters, on a seabed that was once covered by an ice sheet, the BBC reports that scientists have “discovered sponges, sea spiders, anemones and octopuses – a surprisingly rich ecosystem thriving despite being cut off from sunlight for centuries.”

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack

Small Bites is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Hey Small Biters,

Eric Swalwell spent years positioning himself as one of Washington’s most outspoken critics of Donald Trump, frequently demanding accountability, transparency and consequences for political misconduct. Now, the former Democratic congressman finds himself at the center of a federal criminal investigation that has already ended his congressional career and derailed his ambitions to become California’s next governor. On Tuesday morning, federal agents searched a Beverly Hills mansion belonging to wealthy developer and political donor Stephen Cloobeck, a longtime associate of Swalwell.

The search marks another significant development in an investigation involving multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault. Swalwell has denied criminal wrongdoing, and no criminal conviction has been established. Nevertheless, the widening investigation presents an extraordinary reversal for a politician who once seemed destined for an even more prominent role in Democratic politics.

The property searched by federal investigators belongs to Cloobeck, the founder of Diamond Resorts International, a successful timeshare business. Cloobeck had supported Swalwell politically, and the former congressman reportedly spent time at the Beverly Hills residence before resigning from Congress in April. Authorities have not publicly explained what evidence they were seeking at the property or whether any materials were seized.

An FBI spokesperson confirmed that agents conducted an operation in the Los Angeles region connected to an ongoing criminal investigation but declined to provide additional details. That distinction matters because the search of a property associated with an investigation does not establish wrongdoing by its owner. Still, the decision to search a residence connected to a prominent political donor indicates that investigators are examining circumstances beyond Swalwell’s own homes and personal devices.

Subscribe now

Cloobeck has already made clear that his relationship with Swalwell changed dramatically after the allegations became public. In April, the businessman publicly distanced himself from the former congressman, saying he no longer wished to associate with someone accused of taking advantage of women. He also emphasized his support for women’s rights, a pointed rejection of a politician he had previously backed. The fallout illustrates how quickly political relationships can deteriorate when serious allegations emerge. Wealthy donors often provide candidates with financial resources, introductions and access to influential networks, but those relationships can become liabilities when an investigation attracts public scrutiny. For Swalwell, losing a powerful supporter was another blow to a career already collapsing under the weight of allegations that have yet to be resolved in court.

The investigation began gathering momentum after a woman accused Swalwell of sexually assaulting her on two occasions, including during a period when she worked for him. Other women subsequently alleged additional forms of sexual misconduct, including receiving unsolicited sexually explicit messages and nude photographs. These are serious allegations that deserve careful investigation, particularly because some involve a potential imbalance of power between an elected official and people connected to his professional life. Sexual misconduct allegations involving employers or public officials raise questions about whether professional authority was abused and whether those affected felt able to speak out. At the same time, allegations are not findings of guilt, and Swalwell retains the right to challenge the claims and defend himself through the legal process.

The federal investigation has already involved substantial investigative activity. In August, agents seized electronic devices from Swalwell at San Francisco International Airport and searched his residence in Washington, DC. The latest search in Beverly Hills suggests investigators are continuing to pursue information potentially relevant to the case. Electronic devices can contain communications, photographs, location information and other records that may help investigators evaluate allegations, although authorities have not disclosed what they recovered or what the evidence shows. The involvement of federal investigators does not automatically mean criminal charges will follow. Prosecutors must still determine whether the available evidence supports specific offenses and whether those allegations can be proven under the applicable legal standards.

Subscribe now

Swalwell is also facing scrutiny from prosecutors outside the federal investigation. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office has confirmed that it is investigating allegations involving a former staff member who accused Swalwell of raping her at a New York City hotel during a charity gala in 2024. The district attorney’s office has encouraged survivors and anyone with relevant information to contact its special victims division. Prosecutors in Los Angeles have also reportedly considered whether charges might be appropriate. Multiple jurisdictions examining related allegations can complicate an investigation because each office must evaluate its own legal authority, available evidence and applicable criminal statutes. What remains essential is that the allegations receive a thorough and impartial examination, without allowing either Swalwell’s political prominence or his partisan affiliations to determine the outcome.

The political consequences have already been severe. Swalwell was first elected to Congress in 2012 and represented a district east of San Francisco for seven terms. He became a recognizable national Democratic figure through his work on the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, his frequent television appearances and his confrontations with Trump and Republican leaders. He even launched a brief presidential campaign in 2019, although the effort failed to gain meaningful traction. More recently, Swalwell had emerged as a leading contender in California’s gubernatorial race, positioning himself for a potential move from Congress to one of the country’s most influential governorships. Those ambitions ended after the allegations surfaced, prompting him to abandon the governor’s race and resign from Congress in April.

Swalwell’s history as a prominent Trump critic makes the scandal politically explosive, but it should not change the standard by which his conduct is evaluated. He served as one of the Democratic impeachment managers during Trump’s second impeachment following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He also repeatedly challenged Republican officials over questions of ethics, national security and accountability. Critics will undoubtedly point to the contrast between those public positions and the allegations now surrounding him. Yet political hypocrisy, even when compelling as a talking point, is not the same as criminal guilt. The relevant question is whether investigators can substantiate the accusations and whether any laws were broken. Accountability should apply consistently, whether the accused politician belongs to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party or neither.

This is not the first time Swalwell’s judgment and associations have generated controversy. In 2023, then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy removed him from the Intelligence Committee over his earlier contact with Christine Fang, a woman suspected of having ties to Chinese intelligence. Fang reportedly interacted with Swalwell’s campaign during his early congressional career and participated in fundraising activities. Federal investigators informed Swalwell of their concerns in 2015, after which he said he ended contact with her. Importantly, Swalwell was not accused of wrongdoing in that matter, and a House Ethics Committee investigation concluded without disciplinary action. The episode remains part of his political history, but it should not be conflated with the current sexual misconduct investigation. Separate controversies require separate evidence, and suspicion in one matter does not establish guilt in another.

Ultimately, the search of Cloobeck’s Beverly Hills mansion is another reminder that political influence and public visibility cannot substitute for legal accountability. Swalwell’s resignation and abandoned gubernatorial campaign demonstrate how devastating serious allegations can be to a public career, even before prosecutors reach a final decision. The women who have come forward deserve to have their allegations investigated respectfully and thoroughly, while Swalwell deserves the same presumption of innocence afforded to anyone facing criminal accusations. The FBI’s latest operation may eventually help clarify what happened, but the public still does not know whether charges will be filed or what evidence investigators have obtained. For a former congressman who built much of his reputation on demanding answers from others, the coming months may determine whether he can provide convincing answers to the serious questions now surrounding him.

Subscribe now

✍️

Once the cameras followed his speeches.
Now investigators follow the evidence.

The donors have stepped away.
The political ambitions have faded.

Power may open many doors.
But it cannot close the courthouse.

🧭 A Small Bite to Carry

• Federal agents searched the Beverly Hills home of wealthy developer and former Swalwell supporter Stephen Cloobeck as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Authorities have not disclosed what they were seeking or whether the search produced evidence of wrongdoing.

• Swalwell faces multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, and investigations involving federal authorities and prosecutors in New York and potentially Los Angeles. He has denied criminal wrongdoing, and the allegations have not been established as criminal guilt.

• The former seven-term Democratic congressman resigned from Congress and abandoned his California gubernatorial campaign after the allegations emerged. His political downfall underscores the importance of investigating serious accusations consistently, regardless of a public official’s party affiliation, influence or previous reputation.

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Share Small Bites Substack