Nebraska Votes in Primary Election Filled With Undercover Plants

The Nebraska Senate Democratic primary Tuesday appears tailor-made to confuse voters.

There wasn’t even supposed to be a contest, thanks to independent populist Dan Osborn running for the Senate. The Nebraska Democratic Party planned to endorse his candidacy this year due to his strong performance in 2024, when he came within seven percentage points of defeating incumbent Republican Senator Deb Fischer and outperformed Kamala Harris’s 21-point loss to Donald Trump in the state.

But then 79-year-old pastor William Forbes entered the race. While Forbes is a registered Democrat, he’s voted for Trump three times and attended a Republican training event earlier this year. Nebraska Democrats were understandably worried, so now retired pharmacy tech Cindy Burbank is running against Forbes.

Burbank said that if she wins the primary, she’ll drop out and endorse Osborn so he has a clear field to take on incumbent Republican Senator Pete Ricketts, whose family is worth billions. Not surprisingly, Republicans are crying foul, calling Burbank’s candidacy a coordinated and unfair means to prop up Osborn.

Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen tried to kick Burbank off the ballot in March, but she successfully sued to stay on. Burbank also paid the filing fee for a third-party candidate, Mike Marvin, of the Legal Marijuana NOW Party.

Osborn is an Omaha union leader who became popular during a 77-day strike at a Kellogg’s cereal plant in 2021, catapulting him to fame and his strong showing in 2024. A former registered Democrat, he ran as an independent that year in part due to the party’s struggles to convince voters in the Great Plains, and pledges not to caucus with either party if he wins this time around. He’s behind Ricketts by only one percentage point in recent polling.

“The national Democratic brand is toxic among voters in states like Nebraska in the sense that it’s very much identified with the coastal liberal elites on a whole host of issues,” Mark P. Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, told USA Today. “Nebraska Democrats are adopting this sort of plan B strategy, which is to not run a Democratic candidate at all.”

Will Nebraska voters be able to figure out what’s going on? If Forbes wins the primary, he could siphon away votes from Osborn in November and help Ricketts to victory. If Burbank wins, Nebraska Democrats have to get the word out that she’s supporting Osborn. All of this could easily go wrong.

A watchdog group is suing the Trump administration for allegedly using the president’s “Freedom 250” organization as a vehicle to divert funds to his vanity projects without congressional approval.

On Tuesday, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, filed a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, following unanswered Freedom of Information Act requests filed back in February for records regarding the public funds being used for Freedom 250—the organization overseeing everything from setting up the Grand Prix around the National Mall to Trump’s independence arch. The Department of the Interior never responded to the requests, and now PEER’s lawsuit claims that our money is being used with “with no transparency, no accountability, and no guardrails.”

“America’s 250th anniversary celebration is supposed to be an occasion for strengthening public trust in our democratic institutions, not eroding it,” PEER’s executive director, Tim Whitehouse, said in a statement on Monday. “In contrast, Freedom 250 is a privately managed slush fund.… It epitomizes what is wrong with politics today.”

PEER alleges that the Trump administration is using Freedom 250 to redirect $100 million in taxpayer funds from America 250 without congressional approval, mix private funding and public taxpayer money without oversight, sell “access to President Trump” for up to $2.5 million, solicit foreign donations, and more. PEER also accuses the DOI of pressuring workers to use Freedom 250 branding in their official email sign-offs, which could violate the Hatch Act.

The Trump administration has yet to comment on the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional map that disregards one of two majority-Black voting districts in the state—a decision that one justice predicts will cause “chaos” and “confusion.”

All three of the court’s liberal justices dissented against Monday’s order, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the counterargument. In five concise pages, Sotomayor flamed her conservative colleagues for the ruling, arguing that it was “inappropriate” for the court to alter the state’s voting lines mere days before the primary. She noted that Alabama had already been found to have violated the Fourteenth Amendment by intentionally diluting the votes of its Black voters.

“The Court today unceremoniously discards District Court’s meticulously documented and supported discriminatory-intent finding & careful remedial order without any sound basis for doing so and without regard for the confusion that will surely ensue,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, noting that the decision will “cause only confusion as Alabamians begin to vote in the elections scheduled for next week.”

The high court’s order will allow Alabama’s GOP leaders to redraw electoral boundaries, offering a path for the party to eliminate one or both Democratic seats in the House and potentially imperil Democratic Representative Shomari Figures.

The ruling was made possible by the court’s decision to gut the Voting Rights Act late last month.

Black voters in Alabama had fought for years to have their voices heard, navigating the legal system to carve out another Black-majority voting district in the red Southern stronghold.

“We are witnessing a return to Jim Crow. And anybody who is alarmed by these developments—as everybody should be—better be making a plan to vote in November to put an end to this madness while we still can,” NAACP National President Derrick Johnson said in a statement to the Associated Press.

The Pentagon has presented yet another nonsensical price tag for Donald Trump’s reckless war in Iran: $29 billion.

During a hearing at the House Appropriations Subcommittee Tuesday, Undersecretary of Defense Jules Hurst faced a brutal fact-check on the Pentagon’s supposedly $29 billion war.

Late last month, the Pentagon testified that the estimated cost of the war so far was $25 billion. Now Hurst claimed it would cost $24 billion to replace and repair the U.S. munitions stockpile alone.

Hawaii Representative Ed Case pointed to a CSIS report from April 21 that estimated the aggregate unit cost of replacing and repairing seven precision systems to be $25 billion.

“Does that sound about right? I mean, you’re projecting everything at [$23 billion],” Case said.

“That number sounds a little high for me, for that stage of the war,” Hurst said.

Case asked how much it would cost to replace the 39 aircraft that have been reportedly lost since the beginning of the war. Hurst said that “repair on aircraft is something that it is very hard to calculate” but that an estimate had been included in the total cost. One might imagine it would be wildly expensive to “repair” planes that have been completely destroyed.

Hurst said that the estimates for the cost of fuel were included in the Pentagon’s operations and maintenance cost, but not the cost of repairing U.S. military bases in the Middle East.

“We have a lot of unknowns there, we don’t know what our future posture is gonna be. We don’t know how we construct those bases, and we don’t know what part our allies or partners could pay into our MILCON costs,” Hurst said.

At least 16 American installations across eight countries have been struck as part of Iran’s retaliatory strikes against the U.S. and Israeli military onslaught. It was previously reported that 13 U.S. bases in the Middle East had been rendered all but uninhabitable, forcing U.S. military service members to work remotely from hotels and office spaces.

Inflation is surging under President Trump, reaching its highest level in three years thanks to the Iran war, and more Americans than ever don’t trust him on the economy.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its monthly report Tuesday showing that inflation rose to 3.8 percent in April, a higher rate than wages, which grew at 3.6 percent. The price of oil is a big reason why, as it is up more than 70 percent since January thanks to the Iran war. As of Tuesday morning, the average national price for a gallon of gas is $4.50.

The worst is still yet to come, though; the full effect of high gas prices will not affect everything else for a few more months, according to Citigroup, who told its clients Monday that “energy costs likely would not start to feed through to core goods prices for at least a few more months.”

Meanwhile, a new CNN poll shows that 70 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, with 77 percent of Americans (and a majority of Republicans) saying that the cost of living has gone up in their community. Only a third of Americans approve of how Trump is helping the middle class, 26 percent of Americans approve of his performance on inflation, and just 21 percent do on gas prices.

According to the poll, Democrats are trusted more on the cost of living, helping the middle class, and inflation. But on the economy overall, almost a third of Americans don’t trust either party. Trump and his fellow Republicans may be in trouble during November’s midterms (barring the effects of redistricting), but Democrats will have to show that they can fight to improve Americans’ economic conditions.

Survivors of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein will be publicly testifying for the first time on Tuesday in Palm Beach County, Florida—where Epstein was first investigated, arrested, and given a baffling sweetheart plea deal.

The women, along with Congress members and other witnesses, will be offering testimony at a House Oversight field hearing regarding just how Epstein was able to secure a deal that allowed him to leave jail for hours at a time during his 13-month sentence for soliciting prostitution, even as allegations of his abuse of underage girls gained steam.

“For some reason, they allowed a predator to go loose for many, many years,” Florida Congresswoman Lois Frankel said. “Probably hundreds of young women were sexually abused because of the way this case was handled.… This is an opportunity really to put some focus back where it started.… Maybe to get some answers from some of the folks as to why this miscarriage of justice occurred.”

The hearing, organized by House Democrats, is set to begin at 10 a.m.

A Republican Virginia lawmaker is facing calls to resign after she agreed with a wildly racist statement about Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Representative Jen Kiggans appeared on Richmond-based radio commentator Rich Herrera’s show Monday to discuss the state’s hotly contested congressional maps. But the since-deleted interview flew off the rails when Kiggans emphatically concurred with Herrera after he referred to Jeffries as a slave.

“He spent $20 million-plus on our redistricting debacle we had. He now is talking about … firing our Supreme Court justices,” Herrera said of Jeffries. House Majority Forward, a nonprofit connected to Jeffries, spent roughly $40 million on the redistricting effort.

“If Hakeem Jeffries wants to be involved in Virginia politics, then I suggest he … leave New York, move down here to Virginia, run for office down here, you can represent us,” Herrera continued. “If not, get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia.”

“That’s right. Ditto. Yes. Yes, to that,” Kiggans replied.

The term “cotton-picking hands” is heavily rooted in the history of U.S. slavery, literally referring to the Black men, women, and children who were forced to pick cotton.

Kiggans is up for reelection in November. One of her opponents in the race, former Representative Elaine Luria, wrote Monday evening that “the racist comments proudly endorsed today by Jen Kiggans … are disgusting and beneath any elected official.”

“I grew up in the South. I know what these racist dog whistles mean,” Luria added.

The number two House Democrat, Minority Whip Katherine Clark, called on Kiggans to resign shortly after clips of the interview were made public.

In a statement on X, Kiggans claimed that she did not agree with the host’s remark and that it was “obvious” she was responding to the larger argument about Jeffries’s involvement in the redistricting effort. She argued that the nationwide political rebuke was “precisely what’s wrong with Democrats.”

“Every lie and distortion is intended to distract from getting their hats handed to them and the Virginia Supreme Court’s clear message: stop trying to rig our elections,” Kiggans wrote. “Democrats are trying to destroy Virginia’s court because they disagree with it. THAT is the real danger to our country.”

By Tuesday morning, the radio interview had been taken off Apple Podcasts, as well as the host’s YouTube channel.

Kiggans’s comments come at a volatile time in U.S. history. Late last month, the Supreme Court effectively gutted the Voting Rights Act by ruling that Louisiana’s congressional maps amounted to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering since they included two Black-majority voting districts.

This story has been updated.

A disturbing trend emerged in President Donald Trump’s latest Truth Social tirade.

Trump posted more than 55 times in just three hours on Monday night, unloading a ton of conspiracy theory content targeting former President Barack Obama, peppered with videos of Black people causing mayhem.

Trump’s onslaught began by claiming that Obama had attempted a coup and boosting a call to “arrest Obama the traitor.” He then posted months-old coverage of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s claims that the Obama administration had pushed the “lie” that Russian President Vladimir Putin preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton to win the 2016 election, which was something Putin has openly admitted.

As Trump continued to post, his allegations got increasingly outlandish. The president shared posts claiming that Obama made $120 million from Obamacare and accusing Obama of “the most heinous crimes committed in American history,” including wiretapping Trump Tower. Other posts mentioned figures such as Senator Mark Kelly, Clinton, and Jack Smith, but Obama’s name appeared over and over again.

After about half an hour of nonstop posting, Trump interrupted his screed against his political enemies to share a video that appeared to show young Black people stealing from a convenience store. “This is why the convenience store chain ‘Wawa’ is closing stores one after another,” the post read.

Then Trump posted another video that purported to show a Black woman working for DoorDash picking up an order, only to be discovered eating the food in her car. “Always scheming,” the post read.

The president also shared a video of a Black man purposefully knocking over a waiter’s tray in a restaurant. “I wouldn’t call him a man,” the post read. “A real man would never disrespect another person like this. I’ll call him what he is, a POS!”

Trump resumed his political posting, sharing a video in which right-wing lawyer Mike Davis called Obama a “demonic force.”

This wouldn’t be the first time Trump’s social media spiraling has taken on racist overtones as he targets Obama. In February, the president shared a video on Truth Social that ended with a short clip of the Obamas’ laughing heads superimposed on the bodies of apes.

Trump continued his deranged posting into the night, and then resumed it when the sun came up. He posted Tuesday morning about a fictional “Federal Victory Note” currency that had his face on it, an AI-generated meme about “Hakeem ‘Low IQ’ Jeffries,” and another AI image of Obama, Joe Biden, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi swimming in a sewage-filled Reflecting Pool.

Tickets to President Trump’s planned UFC fight on the White House lawn are going to cost a hefty amount.

NBC News reports that even though the UFC is paying for the event and tickets are technically free, sponsorship packages, including ringside seats, are going for $1 million-plus, with BBC Sport putting them as high as $1.5 million. Neither the White House nor the UFC has said where the sponsorship money is going.

Trump is personally selecting most of the 4,000-plus spectators for the event, to be held on June 14, which happens to be his eightieth birthday.

“I’m going to make a lot of enemies because it’s impossible to get everyone tickets,” Trump told NBC Friday in a telephone interview.

Trump will likely reward people who have given him political or business favors in the past, or those who are willing to pay up to attend. White House communications director Steven Cheung told NBC that Trump was splitting up his tickets among administration staffers, military servicemembers, and VIPs. The last group could include anyone Trump wants, including members of Congress and foreign dignitaries.

“I get calls, texts or emails every day—a few times every day,” Cheung, a former UFC spokesperson, said of the ticket requests he and other White House staffers are getting. UFC’s own president and CEO Dana White said last month that he only had taken about 200 tickets for himself and gave the rest to Trump, while TKO controls another 200.

An unnamed Trump adviser told NBC that the event is “his show, and it’s being treated that way.”

“The process has been absolute chaos,” the adviser said. “It’s hard to overstate how many requests have come in, but there is no doubt the people President Trump wants there will be there, and those he does not will not be.”

The president and CEO of UFC parent company TKO Holdings, Mark Shapiro, said in an earnings call earlier this month that the company expected to lose as much as $30 million on the event.

Knowing Trump, he’s going to take whatever money he can from the fight, and Republicans in Congress will work to ensure that there is no transparency (possibly in exchange for tickets). The spectacle will essentially be a circus, trading off the presidency, with Trump as a monarch watching people fight for his amusement in the octagon or to get a seat by his side.

Democrats asked the Supreme Court Monday to block a state judiciary ruling that upended their redistricting effort.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday that the proposed maps were essentially invalid because state Democrats did not follow proper procedure. In Virginia, the General Assembly is required to pass a constitutional amendment not just once, but twice. The first vote must be conducted during a regularly scheduled legislative election, while the second vote has to take place after, before the question is put to voters.

The court ruled last week that, although state Democrats complied with those regulations, the timeframe in which it was conducted was compromised since early voting on the matter was already underway. The party’s unsuccessful counterargument turned to long-standing decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has held that even if early voting is underway, an election does not happen until Election Day itself.

Virginians narrowly passed the referendum last month, despite a 2020 state policy that relegated redistricting to 10-year intervals aligned with the national census. Roughly 50.3 percent of the state voted in favor of redrawing the voting map, giving their representatives a chance to squeeze more Democratic seats into the U.S. House at midterms.

The new maps were expected to alter the state’s congressional split to overwhelmingly favor Democrats, switching from a 6–5 split to 10–1.

“The Court overrode the will of the people who ratified the amendment by ordering the Commonwealth to conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected,” wrote lawyers for Virginia Democrats and the state’s Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones, in a statement obtained by the Associated Press. The attorneys added that “the irreparable harm resulting from the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision is profound and immediate.”

The judicial decision was a major setback for the national liberal party, which had placed enormous weight on Virginia to offset successful Republican redistricting efforts in other areas of the country, such as Texas and Florida. The Supreme Court filing is an act of desperation as the party grasps for various solutions to offset the national Republican advantage heading into the midterm election cycle.

On Saturday, lawmakers met with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to discuss other potential solutions in the wake of the Virginia decision, including a bank-shot proposal to redraw the state’s congressional lines anyway.