Losing gracefully is apparently not in Jasmine Crockett’s repertoire. The Texas congresswoman — who entered the 2026 Senate primary as the progressive darling, burned through campaign cash, and got soundly beaten by James Talarico — is now doing what defeated politicians with no self-awareness do: making it everyone else’s fault and refusing to clean up the mess she helped create.
First came the racism card. Speaking at the Black Economic Forum earlier
this month, Crockett declared that her primary loss wasn’t a verdict on her candidacy — it was racism. “It was a racist race,” she said flatly. “We live in America and y’all are celebrating 250, okay? We know what this country is.”
Let’s pause on that for a moment. The people who decided Jasmine Crockett shouldn’t be the Democratic Senate nominee in Texas were… Texas Democrats. Her own party. The same voters she needs to turn out in November. She just called them racist to their faces at a public forum. On the week of America’s 250th birthday, she used her platform to remind everyone that she thinks this country is fundamentally rotten. This is the same woman who wanted to represent Texas in the United States Senate.
She’s technically right that nobody can force her to campaign for him. But let’s be clear about what she’s actually doing: a sitting U.S. congresswoman is actively withholding support from her party’s Senate nominee in a must-win race, in her home state, because her feelings are still hurt four months after losing a primary. Whatever happens to Talarico in November, Crockett has made sure a portion of the blame lands squarely on her.
Here’s the part that should make Texas Republicans smile: Crockett isn’t wrong about Talarico. He is a genuinely terrible candidate for Texas — a “God is nonbinary,” anti-fossil fuel, pro-trans progressive who polls like exactly what he is in a state that isn’t California. He lost the primary in the wrong direction: winning by being too radical for Texas while Crockett lost by being not quite radical enough for the Democratic base.
The Democrats managed to field the one candidate who might actually make Crockett look electable by comparison. And now Crockett is going to spend the fall campaigning for down-ballot candidates nobody has ever heard of instead of the top of the ticket.
Susan Collins is watching all of this and feeling very good about her life choices.
Texas Republicans should be watching too — and feeling even better.
The administration of President Trump is currently grappling with an unprecedented and highly visible leadership vacuum following the simultaneous departure of several high-ranking cabinet members. This internal upheaval occurs against a backdrop of complex international maneuvers, where the White House has extended a ceasefire indefinitely to facilitate ongoing peace talks potentially involving Iran and Pakistan. Despite these diplomatic efforts, the domestic front is in disarray. The Attorney General, Labor Secretary, and Homeland Security Secretary have all exited their roles abruptly, leaving critical departments without permanent leadership and raising questions about the continuity of governance.
These rapid-fire departures, frequently linked to scandals and a perceived loss of executive trust, have sparked intense public scrutiny regarding poor management and a potentially hostile work environment. Observers have noted that the most recent wave of exits consists entirely of high-profile women, further fueling a narrative of deeper systemic dysfunction within the Trump administration.
Although official statements from the administration attempt to frame these departures as part of a planned transition, the timing aligns suspiciously with mounting legal troubles and the heightening pressure of upcoming midterm elections. Ultimately, this volatility is damaging credibility and reinforcing a narrative of a presidency mired in crisis.
A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan announced that he has resigned from the bench.
Wolf wrote that he was giving up his lifetime appointment so he can speak openly against President Donald Trump, whom he accuses of undermining judicial independence and using the law to reward allies and target opponents.
“My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained
by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,” he wrote.
Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he added The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he added.
The former U. S. District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts noted that he began his public service career at the Department of Justice in 1974, not long after the Watergate scandal that brought down then-GOP President Richard Nixon.
Wolf served under Attorney General Edward Levi during the Ford administration, crediting Levi with shaping his understanding of the rule of law and the importance of pursuing justice in a nonpartisan manner. Wolf’s successor was chosen and nominated after he assumed senior status in 2013, and the seat was formally filled by Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, in 2014 “I hope to be a spokesperson for embattled judges who, consistent with the code of conduct, feel they cannot speak candidly to the American people,” he told The New York Times.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson countered Wolf’s commentary in a statement to Fox News Digital, noting that judges who “want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench. ”
Here’s the reality: with over 20 Supreme Court victories, the Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings,” Jackson said “And any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so,” she added.
This comes just months before November’s midterms.
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says Republicans may outspend Democrats this election cycle, a dramatic reversal from past campaigns where Democrats often held the fundraising advantage Speaking on Breitbart, Gruters argued Republicans are entering the midterm cycle with significantly stronger financial positioning and unprecedented coordination across the conservative movement.
Host Mike Slater asked Gruters to put the reported $70 million Democrats spent in Virginia’s recent redistricting battle into perspective.
How much money is that for the parties?” Slater asked Gruters responded by painting a bleak financial picture for Democrats.
“The DNC has minus 4 million [dollars], and it wasn’t the DNC that plowed $70 million: It was the collective,” Gruters said.
So, if you look at the collective on the right, we may have $800 million,” he continued “The collective on the left may have $350 million, and when you have the court, there’s gonna be a court case that is ruled on in the next week or two, coordinated campaign limits, which will magnify that, which will allow full coordination and allow the parties to spend at the candidate rate, which is massive for us,” he said.
