Trump Lunges at Female Reporter Asking About Those Supposed $5K Checks

President Trump got in the face of ABC’s Rachel Scott after she asked him a question about the rationale behind his national midterm voter bribe.

“Mr. President, on the checks: The U.S. is still $40 trillion in debt. If your economic policies are working, why do you need an incentive for people to turn out to vote?” she asked Thursday night.

“I didn’t do it for turning out the vote, I did it as a reward for people having to put up with five years and four years of a horrible situation caused by Biden,” Trump replied. “You look at the border, you look at the crime.... It’s almost a reward for the people having to put up with Biden’s policies.”

“But you also offered checks through—”

“Not you. Not you!” Trump snapped, leaning in threateningly close to Scott. “Hey, not you,” he said again with a snarl. “Your network … you’re the worst.”

This is not the first time Trump has crashed out after being asked a tough question by a woman. In April, he yelled “Quiet, quiet, quiet!” at CNN’s Kristen Holmes, calling her disrespectful for asking a pertinent question about U.S. relations with North Korea. He’s lobbed transphobic attacks at CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, and last year told Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey “Quiet, Piggy!” He’s also lashed out at Scott before, calling her “stupid” after she dared ask about gas prices.

His angry response to Scott yet again displays his disdain for female journalists and his lack of preparedness for even the most straightforward questions.

While giving remarks at the National Medal of Honor Museum in Texas Thursday, President Trump complained to a room full of medal recipients that he can’t have one.

“The thing I really want is I want for myself a Congressional Medal of Honor, and I’ve studied it and I will give it to myself. I have no problem, but I’m not allowed to. Can you believe it? The one thing I’m not allowed to do,” Trump said to laughter from the audience, which included 15 of the 65 living recipients of the honor. “I would give myself, so it would make it instead of 15, we’d have 16.”

After making jabs at the “fake news media” for always taking his sarcastic remarks and claiming that he actually wants a medal, Trump quipped “I’m only kidding” before adding, “Actually, I’m not kidding, I would like to.... I can think of no other thing.”

It’s a crass statement to make to recipients of the highest honor in the U.S. military, given to troops “who distinguish themselves through conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty.” Trump has never served in the military, dodging the Vietnam draft with a mysterious medical exemption for bone spurs. He later remarked that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases while dating around was like “being in Vietnam.”

But the president has never seen a trophy or award that he didn’t want, regardless of whether or not he deserved it. At a 2016 rally in Virginia, he accepted a (possibly fake) Purple Heart, given to soldiers wounded in combat, from a veteran. “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart,” he said while showing off the medal to the crowd. “This was much easier.”

Despite his desire for these kinds of awards, Trump has repeatedly disrespected wounded or deceased veterans and their families. He infamously insulted Khizer and Ghazala Khan, who lost their son in Iraq in 2004, and in 2015 attacked Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War, saying, “He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

In his first term as president, Trump referred to U.S. soldiers who died in World War I as “suckers” and “losers,” and wanted soldiers who had lost limbs in their service hidden from public view during a proposed military parade. His recent treatment of soldiers serving in his war with Iran, with long deployments, supply disruptions, and other poor conditions only add to the evidence that he doesn’t really care about military service members, and wants their honors without any effort or sacrifice.

The city of Denver—along with multiple Latino civil rights groups—on Thursday sued Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and the Trump administration to stop them from allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to serve immigration warrants at polling sites.

While Mullin has denied that ICE would be monitoring voting booths this election, he was concrete about agents having the right to be there if there was a “threat to that polling place” or “we’re serving a warrant.” Denver argues that even that violates 18 U.S. Code § 592, a Civil War-era law which blocks armed forces from patrolling polling locations.

“The right to vote, and to do so without fear of intimidation, is fundamental to our democracy and to being an American,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said in a press release. “Stationing ICE agents near polling places is only meant to scare people and suppress votes. We’ll fight tooth and nail to prevent it.”

Federal agents have already been reported at polling places in New York, California, and Texas, as Trump continues his attempt to use baseless claims of widespread voter fraud as a means of fully controlling—or postponing—the midterm elections.

“The presence of federal force at the polls interferes with the smooth administration of elections at the local level,” the lawsuit reads. “It disrupts voting and makes it more difficult for state and local election officials and law enforcement to do their jobs by making polling places spaces of confrontation.”

Other parties in the lawsuit noted that the presence of federal agents would have a chilling effect on Latino voters, potentially stopping many from showing up at all.

“Sending armed ICE officers to polling places is not immigration enforcement — it is voter suppression, plain and simple,” UnidosUS President & CEO Janet Murguía said. “All Americans—including Latino voters—have a constitutional right to cast their ballot without fear of interrogation, detention, or family separation. This case is about protecting voters, preserving confidence in our elections, and ensuring that every eligible voter can participate free from intimidation.”

Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins relented on the state’s congressional maps Thursday, ending weeks of election season chaos sparked by a scheme to eke out another Republican seat in the House.

“Following the United States Supreme Court’s stay, the only governing court order in effect is from the Missouri Supreme Court. In accordance with that order, my Office is directing local election authorities to use the 2022 congressional map,” Hoskins said in a statement.

The order came hours after a contentious hearing before the Missouri Supreme Court that weighed whether Hoskins should be held in contempt of court. By Thursday afternoon, the court found that Hoskins “was in CONTEMPT” of their decision, but he would avoid punishment because his decision to use the 2022 map had purged the civil contempt.

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state needed to use its original maps drawn up in 2022, and could not use maps that were created in 2025 at Donald Trump’s behest (also known as the H1 B map)—even though state officials had used the new map during the August primary. The court held that the 2022 map was the only legally viable legislative map, since the 2025 map was still pending due to a referendum petition filed in December.

Yet Hoskins did not comply with the court order. Instead, he sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh chose to reject the request on Tuesday.

Then matters got even more complicated. That same day, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark—a Trump appointee—issued a temporary restraining order in a separate federal case, directing Missouri to use the 2025 maps while prohibiting state officials from using the 2022 map.

The U.S. Supreme Court chimed in on the matter for a second time on Thursday, overriding Clark’s decision by ordering the state to rely on Missouri’s prior ruling.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issued her own statement Thursday afternoon in support of Hoskins’s decision to walk back the 2025 map effort ahead of the midterms.

“We affirm the Secretary of State of Denny Hoskins’s position and decision to advise local election authorities that the 2022 map is in effect,” Hanaway said. “We respect and will continue to comply with all court decisions, including orders issued by the Supreme Court of Missouri. We appreciate Secretary Hoskins’s continued commitment to upholding the law and working diligently to fulfill his duties on behalf of Missouri.”

Republicans are reportedly leaning toward Vice President JD Vance as their pick for 2028.

While attending a closed-door breakfast at the Republican midterm convention Thursday, Vance was met with cheers of “forty-eight” from the crowd of delegates from key battleground states, four people who were in the room told Politico. 

Ahead of Vance’s scheduled address Thursday night, the breakfast served as reassurance that the vice president is favored by party members to eventually replace Donald Trump. Vance is currently leading the most recent Republican presidential primary polls, ahead of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. 

Even Trump seems to have settled on Vance as his successor—though he still jokes about running for a third term.  

Things weren’t always so peachy for Vance. Earlier this summer, the vice president was the target of online attacks from within the GOP after his involvement in a now-collapsed ceasefire agreement with Iran. Vance’s allies tried to spin the criticism, claiming that coordinated opposition from “establishment” and “neoconservative” Republicans could actually help him in 2028. 

We’re still a long way from 2028, and Vance may get stuck in yet another fissure forming in the Republican Party: between the MAGA cultists and Charlie Kirk fans.