Even Ted Cruz Recognizes Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension Is Dangerous

Is it a scene “right out” of Goodfellas, or is it just another day under the Trump administration?

That’s the question that Texas Senator Ted Cruz is asking, after he likened Brendan Carr to a “mafioso” over the FCC chairman’s recent threats to punish TV networks that refused to expunge Jimmy Kimmel from the air.

“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said, I am thrilled that he was fired,” Cruz said on his podcast. “But let me tell you: If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said; we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like’—that will end up bad for conservatives.”

The Texas Republican further condemned Carr’s actions as “dangerous as hell,” comparing the Trump administration’s slippery attraction to government-enforced censorship to the heinous power of the One Ring from Lord of the Rings. Opening the door to that at the federal level would not bode well when Democrats return to power, Cruz said.

“They will silence us,” Cruz continued. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly.”

But unlike some other conservatives who have chastised the Trump administration’s flagrant First Amendment overstep, Cruz actually wields a unique ability to hold Carr accountable: In addition to his other responsibilities, Cruz serves as the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over the FCC.

At a Politico event earlier this week—before the Kimmel fiasco—Cruz said that the First Amendment “absolutely protects hate speech,” even if it does not shield people from the “consequences” of their speech by their employers.

Kimmel’s late-night show was suspended indefinitely after he made supposedly controversial comments during his Monday night monologue about the political affiliation of Charlie Kirk’s suspected assassin. (Kimmel condemned Kirk’s death as a “senseless murder” but ruffled powerful feathers when he said that MAGA was rushing to claim that Tyler Robinson was “anything other than one of them”—which is technically true.)

On Wednesday, Carr suggested to YouTuber Benny Johnson that the FCC would open an investigation into anyone still platforming the comedian. Sinclair and Nexstar—two of the country’s biggest broadcasters—said they would no longer air Kimmel’s show. The timing was unmistakable: Nexstar, notably, is currently seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion deal to buy Tegna, an acquisition that would make Nexstar the biggest owner of local stations in the country.

President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social Friday boasting that China had approved a deal that would allow TikTok to keep operating in the United States under new ownership—but Chinese President Xi Jinping seems to think otherwise.

After the presidents spoke over the phone, Trump posted that they had “made progress on many very important issues,” including “the approval of the TikTok Deal.”

But the first official readout of the call, from an agency in Beijing, made no mention of the deal, according to Politico.

Instead, Xi reiterated China’s long-standing position that negotiations over the app will continue.

“China’s position on the TikTok issue is clear,” the readout said. “The Chinese government respects the wishes of companies and welcomes them to conduct commercial negotiations based on market rules and reach solutions that comply with Chinese laws.… China hopes that the U.S. will provide an open, fair, and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese companies to invest in the U.S.”

TikTok’s future in the U.S. has been up in the air for months. Trump has repeatedly pushed back enforcement of a law that requires the platform to either be controlled by a U.S. company or banned. The most recent postponement was Tuesday, when Trump delayed the deadline again until mid-December.

Lawmakers purportedly passed the ban to address national security concerns, and to prevent China from collecting Americans’ data. But ever since the 2024 election, Trump’s become partial to the platform—not for its viral dances or indecipherable Gen Alpha memes, but because he thinks it helped get him elected.

Liberal-left nonprofits are, understandably, on edge as the Trump administration appears poised to treat the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a pretext for cracking down on liberal and progressive organizations.

In the immediate wake of the shooting, President Trump baselessly pinned the violence on the “radical left,” vowing to hunt down organizations that he claims “support” violence or “go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country.” Earlier this week, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller similarly promised to pursue “an organized strategy to go after left-leaning organizations” that supposedly promote violence.

Attorney and commentator Norm Eisen—who runs one such group, Democracy Defenders Action—has circulated a draft open letter, titled “An Open Letter Opposing Threats by the Administration Against Nonprofits & Charities,” among allies, reported Gabe Kaminsky, of the conservative digital publication The Free Press, on Friday.

The statement, which begins by condemning Kirk’s murder, goes on to say:

It is un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten nonprofit and charitable organizations, other perceived adversaries, or any class of people. They did not commit this murder, and the vast powers of the government should not be abused to threaten their constitutionally-protected free speech and other rights.

Attacks on nonprofits threaten to impede “essential work,” the draft letter continues, including “working with faith communities, caring for vulnerable populations, upholding the Constitution, [and] defending the rule of law.” Urging the government to de-escalate, it concludes: “This moment of tragedy does not call for exploiting a horrific act to further deepen our divides and make us less safe. It calls for unity—unity against violence and unity of purpose as Americans.”

Vladimir Putin is once again calling Europe’s bluff. 

Three Russian fighter jets entered Estonian airspace on Friday in a significant display of aggression that will test NATO’s cohesiveness and President Trump’s patience. 

“Highly concerning reports of Russian violation of Estonian airspace. This incident, like other recent Russian violations of NATO countries’ airspace, once again illustrates the seriousness of the Russian threat to European security and the fact that our and NATO’s readiness is constantly being tested,” Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson wrote Friday on X. “The Swedish Air Force maintains a standing quick reaction alert to handle incidents such as this. As a NATO member, Sweden stands in solidarity with our allies and contributes to security in our region.” 

Estonia is the third NATO member to have its airspace intruded upon by either jet or drone in just a few days. 

“Russia has already violated Estonia’s airspace four times this year, which in itself is unacceptable. But today’s incursion, involving three fighter aircraft entering our airspace, is unprecedentedly brazen,” Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna told CNN. ““Russia’s increasingly extensive testing of boundaries and growing aggressiveness must be met with a swift increase in political and economic pressure.” 

It’s unclear whether that pressure will be enough to make the Kremlin back down, as it certainly hasn’t up to this point. Russia has enough cash and weaponry stockpiled to weather any sanction the EU may throw their way. The X factor here will once again be Trump and his attention span. For what it’s worth, Trump has spoken more negatively about Putin in recent days, telling the media Thursday that the Russian president had “let [him] down” in reaching peace talks.   

A federal judge struck President Donald Trump’s complaint against The New York Times Friday, dismissing the suit as just angry ramblings.

According to the clearly frustrated Judge Steven Merryday, the 85-page complaint filed by Trump’s legal team was, essentially, a pile of garbage.

“A complaint is not a public forum for vituperation and invective—not a protected platform to rage against an adversary,” the judge wrote. “A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally or the functional equivalent of the Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner.”

Merryday’s striking of Trump’s complaint isn’t a commentary on the suit’s merits; rather, Merryday’s decision is a statement that long-winded gripes, repetitive and superfluous praises of the president, and an extensive list of Trump’s properties and media appearances have no place in a legal complaint. In 85 pages, only two counts of defamation are alleged.

Trump has 28 days to submit a new complaint—one that is no more than 40 pages long and a “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Trump’s suit against the Times claims that the paper and its reporters defamed him during the 2024 election, resulting in “enormous” economic losses and damaging his “professional and occupational interests.”

In response, a Times spokesperson said that the lawsuit is meritless and “lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting.”

“The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics,” the spokesperson said.

The Trump administration’s messaging on Russia’s recent incursions is loud and clear: It’s just not a big deal.

Speaking with Fox Business Friday, America’s NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker claimed that Russia’s threat was “a little overstated” and that the superpower was actually weaker than American and European media had portrayed.

“They have not had a lot of success. And to your point, Ukraine has actually taken back territory. And, you know, to me that points to a weakness in Russia,” Whitaker said. “As their economy continues to falter, I think their continuation of this war is going to be difficult.”

But European leaders do not feel the same way—particularly as Russia has escalated its position. Last week, Russian drones were spotted in Polish airspace, forcing the NATO ally to shut down four of its airports as it scrambled to fire up its defense systems against the incursion. Poland’s leadership invoked Article 4 of the NATO Treaty the following day, calling the ​​situation the “closest” that Poland had come to armed conflict “since the Second World War.”

Rather than de-escalate the brewing situation in Eastern Europe, Russia followed up the incursion by threatening Finland, another NATO ally. And on Friday, three Russian fighter jets flew into Estonian airspace.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s soft touch on Russia has been noted by both the Kremlin and America’s Western allies. Speaking inches away from Trump during a press conference in England Thursday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer insisted that the U.S. leader needed to “put extra pressure” on Russian President Vladimir Putin, underscoring that it’s only when the United States forces the Russian dictator’s hand that Moscow has “actually shown any inclination to move.”

Trump told reporters that he believed resolving the Ukraine-Russia conflict would be easy because of his “relationship” with Putin, but that the Russian leader had instead let him down. He also scolded European leaders for waylaying sanctions against Russia as they continue to consume the country’s oil, bolstering Russia’s economy in the process.

But overall, the U.S. president has little to show for the profound international recognition he’s offered the Kremlin over the last few months. Against the advice of world leaders, Trump invited Putin to Alaska in August—tasking U.S. soldiers to literally roll out the red carpet for the Russian dictator. It was the first time that Putin had stepped foot on U.S. soil in more than a decade.

Still, Russia has not agreed to peace terms in its ongoing war against Ukraine. The superpower has instead insisted on receiving “international legal recognition” of its 2014 annexation of Crimea, an internationally recognized portion of Ukraine, along with four regions it has claimed in the three years since it first invaded Ukraine.

Whitaker, however, is still holding out hope that his boss will make the best call.

“President Trump is going to continue to find the leverage and to find the conditions where he can bring both sides and mediate a resolution,” Whitaker told Fox Business.

The Senate has passed a “National Day of Remembrance” resolution to honor conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk after he was killed last week.

Introduced by Senator Rick Scott, the resolution praises Kirk as a “courageous American patriot” who sought to “elevate truth, foster understanding, and strengthen the Republic.”

It calls Kirk’s killing “a sobering reminder of the growing threat posed by political extremism and hatred in our society.” It does not mention the things Kirk said that were divisive, racist, and promoted the intense polarization to which Republicans credit his killing.

Since this is just a simple resolution passed by unanimous consent, it is not enshrined law and didn’t require a full Senate vote.

In June, the House passed a resolution to condemn the killing of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman, but it did not create a national day of mourning in her honor.

Kirk’s day of remembrance will take place on his birthday, October 14.

In a twist of fate, that date also marks the birthday of another slain American father, one whom Kirk called a “scumbag,” and whose murder at the hands of police Kirk falsely suggested was really a drug overdose: George Floyd.

The majority of Republican voters now feel that the country is going in the wrong direction, a huge spike in negativity from the 29 percent who were saying that in June, according to a new poll of over 1,000 Americans from the Associated Press.

This spike in pessimism on the right is in some part linked to the killing of Charlie Kirk and the discourse around political violence that followed. And while polls aren’t everything, numbers like these in the midst of Trump’s second term may spell trouble for the party going into the midterms, as its base’s feelings might indicate that the GOP has overplayed its hand on issues like immigration, the economy, and free speech.

“I’ve spent a lot of time worrying about the worsening political discourse and, now, the disturbing assassinations,” 42-year-old Texas Republican Chris Bahr told the AP. “If you’d have talked to me two weeks ago, I wouldn’t have brought it up as a main concern but more of a gnawing feeling.… It’s something I’ve been thinking about. But now it’s violence, while before it was just this sense of animosity and division.”

The outlook is even worse for GOPers under 45, as 61 percent of them think this country is backsliding—a 30 percent increase since this June. And they have plenty of reasons to be. The cost of living is still high, inflation is not down, and the prices on everyday goods are likely to go up too. And nearly 75 percent of Republican women think they’ve lost their way, compared to 56 percent of Republican men. The conditions for a ballot box rebuke of the current GOP are fomenting.

“It’s like, you think you’re heading in the right direction with your career and your job, but everything around you is going up in price. It seems like you can’t catch a break,” 42-year-old truck driver Mustafa Robinson told AP. “But we are also supposed to be united as a country and coming together. And we are not. I’m so perplexed how we’re not on the same page about anything, so bad that these people are being shot.”

Overall, only about 25 percent of Americans think we’re headed in the right direction, whatever that may be to them. This is down from 40 percent just two months ago. The poll can be seen here.

The Republican-controlled House has passed another stopgap bill to keep the government chugging along until late November.

The final tally Friday morning was 217–212, with just one Democrat—Maine Representative Jared Golden—voting alongside all but two Republicans to pass it. Conservative Representatives Tim Burchett and Victoria Spartz sided with the rest of the Democrats in voting against the continuing resolution.

The measure now advances to the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has already promised to defeat it. In its stead, Democratic leadership in the upper chamber have proposed a separate funding plan—though that is also expected to be rejected on the Senate floor late Friday.

The House bill extends the current level of federal funding without making any changes to federal policy. It will keep the government up and running until November 21, which will likely cause another kerfuffle on the eve of Congress’s Thanksgiving recess.

The Democratic Senate bill, meanwhile, would initiate a series of policy changes, including extending Obamacare subsidies and nixing the “big, beautiful” bill’s Medicaid cuts. That plan would fund the government through October 31.

House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed Schumer shortly after the vote, informing the New York politico that the ball was now in his court.

“I hope he does the right thing,” Johnson told reporters. “I hope he does not choose to shut the government down and inflict pain, unnecessarily, on the American people. I hope that they will vote on this clean, short-term CR, so that we can continue the work to get our appropriations done.”

If Schumer’s recent actions are anything to go by, the senator is unlikely to force his caucus into a shutdown showdown. Months ago, when the party was unified in its opposition to Trump’s landmark legislation, Schumer argued that a government shutdown would have “consequences for America that are much, much worse” than the president’s $880 billion cut to social programs.

A shutdown would give the Trump administration “carte blanche to destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now,” Schumer said at the time. “Under a shutdown, the Trump administration would have full authority to deem whole agencies programs and personnel nonessential, furloughing staff with no promise they would ever be rehired.”

The FBI is rearing up to target transgender people, according to a new report by independent national security journalist Ken Klippenstein.

Discussions are reportedly underway in the Trump administration to designate transgender people as “violent extremists” in the wake of last week’s shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Authorities say the roommate and apparent romantic partner of Tyler Robinson, the alleged gunman, is “transitioning from male to female.” Notably, Robinson’s partner had no prior knowledge of the attack and “has been very cooperative with authorities,” according to Utah Governor Spencer Cox. There “is not a solid understanding” as to whether Robinson’s relationship was connected to his alleged actions, a federal official told NBC.

And yet the attack is, per Klippenstein, being used to justify plans to go after trans individuals by labeling them “nihilistic violent extremists.” Klippenstein reports that “the new classification, sources say, gives Trump officials political (and media) cover.”

“They are cynically targeting trans people because the shooter’s lover was trans,” said a senior intelligence official, one of two national security personnel to tell Klippenstein of the FBI’s plan. “The administration has convinced itself that the Charlie Kirk murder exposes some dark conspiracy.”

Klippenstein’s report offers yet another example of the Trump administration and broader MAGA right seizing on Kirk’s death as a flimsy pretext to crack down on purported undesirables.