Alarm on AI’s impact

Lawmakers sound the alarm on AI’s impact on children, jobs

Sens. Bernie Sanders and Katie Britt expressed their concerns about what the future of AI may mean for Americans.

By Cheyanne M. Daniels

Some lawmakers are sounding the alarm about the impact of artificial intelligence on Americans, including children, as the technology becomes increasingly common.

In separate interviews on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Katie Britt (R-Ala.) warned of the dangers AI can have on American democracy and called for technology companies to face accountability for their creations.

“This is the most consequential technology in the history of humanity,” Sanders told host Jake Tapper. “It will transform our country. It will transform the world.”

Sanders indicated he is concerned that those interested in creating or controlling AI — including Elon Musk — are only doing so to become richer.

“Multi-multi-billionaires are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into implementing and developing this technology. What is their motive? Do you think they’re staying up nights worrying about working people and how this technology will impact those people? They are not. They are doing it to get richer and even more powerful,” he said.

Britt is among a group of bipartisan lawmakers working to hold tech companies accountable, though her focus is primarily on preventing minors from accessing certain aspects of AI, such as chatbots.

“We are not doing enough to put up guardrails,” she said. “I think the time to act for Congress is now.”

But Sanders argues that Congress has not taken steps to regulate AI because the wealth of technology companies — some of whom he says have created super PACs — are keeping legislators from doing their jobs.

Musk, along with Bill Gates, has spoken of the future of AI and how it may soon take over jobs. Though Musk has said this would not necessarily be a bad thing, Sanders on Sunday argued that it would leave humans without access to financial stability and healthcare.

“If there are no jobs and humans won’t be needed for most things, how do people get an income to feed their families? To get health care, or to pay the rent?” Sanders said. “There has not been one serious word of discussion in the Congress about that reality.”

Lawmakers like Britt have introduced legislation to counter tech companies’ overreach. She has focused heavily on protecting children from this overreach, but says the challenge is working around Section 230, which protects most online platforms from being held liable for things posted on their sites.

“If you are designing machines or designing platforms or algorithms that are pushing kids into depression or pushing them towards suicide you absolutely should be held liable for that,” she said.

Following a growing number of families have accused tech companies of creating chatbots that, without guardrails, have encouraged or led their children to commit suicide, Britt co-sponsored the bipartisan Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act.

The legislation would ban the use of AI companions by minors, mandate AI chatbots disclose their non-human status, and establish new criminal liability for companies that develop chatbots that engage in sexually explicit conduct with minors.

“If these AI companies can make the most brilliant machines in the world, they could do us all a service by putting up proper guardrails that did not allow for minors to utilize these things,” Britt told Tapper.

2028 Race Has Begun

The 2028 Race Has Begun. Here’s Who’s Winning.

White House hopefuls in both parties are maneuvering for the post-Trump era. Here’s where they stand at the end of 2025.

By Bill Scher

he Trump Organization may sell Trump 2028 hats, but even President Donald Trump bowed to the Constitution and acknowledged earlier this month that he would not be the next Republican presidential nominee: “It’s not going to be me.”

It’s clear to everyone that the jockeying for presidential primary position in the post-Trump era — in both major parties — has already begun. Ambitious contenders are seizing on book deals, magazine profiles, podcast appearances, policy pronouncements and more than a few low-key beefs to find the spotlight and try to elbow into what will be a crowded race.

So which potential 2028ers jockeyed the best in 2025?

In the spirit of this year’s “FIFA Peace Prize — Football Unites the World” award delivered to Trump, POLITICO Magazine is ready to bestow trophies on some of the likeliest presidential contenders. Here are the Democrats and Republicans eyeing the White House who spent the past year maneuvering — some better than others.

Let the ceremony commence!

The Democrats

Attack Dog Medal of Honor

California Gov. Gavin Newsom

In 2025, sometimes Gavin Newsom made Democrats mad. Sometimes Gavin Newsom made Democrats exhilarated. But more than any other potential Democratic presidential candidate, Gavin Newsom made Democrats think about Gavin Newsom.

He made them mad when he invited the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk on his podcast and said “I completely agree with you” on barring transgender women from competing in women’s sports. Ditto for when Newsom was asked in April about the erroneous deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in flagrant violation of a court order; he downplayed it as “the distraction of the day” and suggested Democrats should resist talking about immigration because it’s an “80-20 issue” for Republicans.

But many Democrats thrilled to his adoption of a bombastic social media strategy that walked a fine line between parodying and emulating Trump. And he delighted partisans by jumping into the redistricting war Trump started, successfully convincing California voters to pass a ballot initiative suspending the state’s independent redistricting commission and redrawing district lines to favor Democratic candidates.

The net result of all of Newsom’s frenetic activity is that, despite being based 3,000 miles away from Washington, Newsom has unofficially achieved the status of the party’s chief attack dog — and arguable 2028 Democratic frontrunner.

The proof is in the polls, in which Newsom is the only potential Democratic nominee who has shown clear momentum. During the first five months of the year, Newsom was mired in single digits. Since then, he’s consistently earned double-digit support and has led polls sampled by Yahoo/YouGov, Emerson College and AtlasIntel.

Intra-Party Instigator of the Year

Former Vice President Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris had a busy year, writing and promoting her 2024 campaign memoir 107 Days, which quickly became a New York Times best-seller and sold more than 600,000 copies. Her book tour was a success too; as the New York Times observed, “Only two politicians in America have pulled off nationwide tours this year and packed so many venues” — Sen. Bernie Sanders and Harris.

Yet the former vice president saw her potential 2028 standing ebb. In the first eight 2028 primary polls sampled this year, Harris led in six, averaging 27 percent share of support. In the last eight, she led in three and averaged 21 percent support.

Why the slippage? Likely because Harris spent most of the year looking backward, performing an autopsy on her 2024 presidential campaign and picking some intra-party fights in the process.

Harris never distanced herself from President Joe Biden during the campaign, but did air some tensions between them in her book, and wrote “at 81, Joe got tired.” Critics wondered why she hadn’t acknowledged reality before.

She also rage-baited Josh Shapiro, writing that the Pennsylvania governor “mused that he would want to be in the room for every decision” during her running mate vetting process. That prompted Shapiro to accuse Harris, in an interview with The Atlantic, of “blatant lies” to “sell books and cover her ass.” And she rankled former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg by saying she passed over him for veep because she thought pairing a Black woman with a gay man was “too big of a risk,” adding that Buttigieg “knew that — to our mutual sadness.” After publication, Buttigieg told POLITICO he was “surprised” to read that and retorted, “The way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories.”

Harris even threw shade at the entire party’s record of delivering for voters at a December speech before the Democratic National Committee, declaring “both parties have failed to hold the public’s trust.”

Whether a former vice president can, in the eyes of voters, sufficiently separate herself from the Washington establishment, remains to be seen. But by spending so much energy on the past, she wasn’t putting in as much time taking on Trump or offering an alternative vision for the future.

There’s a reason why Newsom gained ground and Harris lost ground this year; he seized the mantle of chief attack dog and she didn’t.

Running in Place Award

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg maintained a campaign-lite schedule in 2025, participating in an Iowa town hall and making appearances on right-leaning podcasts — burnishing a reputation as a smooth debater able to connect with red-state voters. (In case anyone missed the point of such appearances, Buttigieg wrote a Substack post titled, “Why I Sat Down for a Two-Hour Podcast That Recently Hosted Trump.”)

After ending his four-year stint as Transportation secretary, he and his family left Washington for Michigan, where he passed on running for open seats for governor or senator, a sign he’s interested in a bigger prize like the presidency. He also grew a salt-and-pepper beard, which could help the soon-to-be 44-year-old shake the perception that he’s too young to be Commander-in-Chief.

What he didn’t do in 2025 is anything to address his biggest political weakness: scant support among Black and Latino voters.

In an August poll from Emerson College gauging Democratic support for 2028 possibilities, Buttigeig earned a promising second place with 16 percent. Yet the number of African American respondents who said they support Buttigieg was zero. Not that the percentage of support for Buttigieg among Black people rounded down to zero. Literally zero African Americans contacted by Emerson said they supported Buttigieg. And the number of Hispanic respondents was only slightly better: one. Every Democratic presidential nominee since Michael Dukakis in 1988 has needed Black support, particularly Southern Black support, to secure a sufficient number of delegates.

Furthermore, Buttigieg’s support was heavily consolidated among the college-educated, with little support from voters with only high school diplomas or vocational degrees. He remains a quintessential “wine track” candidate, and such candidates have often struggled to win the Democratic nomination. Buttigieg ends another year as a contender but without a clear path to forging a diverse base of support.

Excellence in Socialism and Bridge-Building Prize

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the democratic socialist insurgent who had once been known for encouraging primary challenges to Democratic House incumbents, continued her intra-party fence-mending operation in 2025. Last year, she began paying dues to her party’s House campaign arm for the first time. She also gave a full-throated endorsement to Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention when others in democratic socialist circles were withholding support to protest the Biden administration’s military support for Israel’s war with Hamas.

This year she helped raise money for the Democratic nominee for the governor of Virginia, Abigail Spangberger, a moderate who has disparaged the “socialist” label that Ocasio-Cortez still dons with pride.

She also solidified her position as the unofficial heir to the democratic socialist movement built up by Bernie Sanders’ two presidential campaigns by joining the 84-year-old Vermont independent for 11 stops on his Fighting Oligarchy tour, which took her to the early primary state of Nevada and the swing state of Arizona.

In another nod to the left, Ocasio-Cortez also didn’t suppress her frustration in November when a faction of Senate Democrats broke ranks to end the government shutdown without a deal to renew expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

With Sanders unlikely to run for president a third time, and with the socialist left’s new favorite — New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani — ineligible to run for president (he was born in Uganda), Ocasio-Cortez would likely have the democratic socialist lane all to herself if she chose to run for president.

She may decide not to. Perhaps she sees running against the aging, battle-scarred Chuck Schumer in 2028 as the safer bet or that staying in the House is the safest choice of all. And the question remains whether the socialist lane has grown big enough to win a Democratic presidential primary, let alone the presidency. But Ocasio-Cortez ends 2025 well positioned to finance and staff a presidential campaign, which is more than what most potential candidates can usually say this early in the process.

The ‘Got a Bill Signed Into Law’ Blue Ribbon

Rep. Ro Khanna

One thing Ocasio-Cortez still does not have on her resume is a signature legislative achievement, which another progressive House Democrat reportedly eyeing the presidency notched this year.

Teaming up with a small band of renegade Republicans, Rep. Ro Khanna helped round up a majority of House members to sign a discharge petition and force a vote — against Speaker Mike Johnson’s wishes — on legislation mandating the Justice Department release documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The bill then sailed through the House and Senate, cornering Trump and compelling his signature. Khanna now has a bipartisan success story to tout on the presidential campaign trail as evidence he can take on Trump and win.

That’s not only more than Ocasio-Cortez can say, but also more than what any Senate Democrat can say they did in 2025.

A-For-Effort Certificates

Senate Category:

Cory Booker, Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego and Chris Murphy

Potential presidential candidates from the Senate Democratic Caucus, lacking obvious legislative options to distinguish themselves, tended to embrace symbolic acts of defiance. Some had better success than others.

Back in March, Cory Booker of New Jersey delivered the longest floor speech in Senate history, holding court for over 25 hours and calling attention to the harsh impacts of Trump’s policies on everyday Americans. In the moment, he received accolades from progressives hungering for some signs of fight, but nine months later, good luck finding someone who remembers anything Booker said.

Last month, Arizona’s Mark Kelly and Michigan’s Elissa Slotkin — two senators with national security backgrounds who represent battleground states — joined four House Democrats to deliver a video message urging members of the military to refuse to follow illegal orders. Trump accused them of treason and suggested they should be executed, giving the Democrats a year-end publicity bump as they refused to back down in multiple interviews. But that media attention is also beginning to fade.

More substantively, Sen. Ruben Gallego, who also represents Arizona, made a small splash in May when he unveiled a comprehensive immigration reform plan. His more provocative move came this month when Gallego sought to outflank Trump on his populist right with a letter passive-agressively scolding the Trump administration for approving 30,000 H-1B visas for tech companies seeking high-skilled foreign workers while those same companies laid off hundreds of thousands of American workers.

But the biggest risk Gallego took was back in January, when he voted for the Laken Riley bill, sought by Trump to require mandatory detention without bail of undocumented immigrants who were charged — but not necessarily convicted — of low-level crimes like shoplifting. Gallego was not the sole Democrat to cross party lines, or even the sole potential presidential aspirant. So did Kelly and Slotkin as well as Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman. But Gallego stood out as he played up his vote as the product of “the perspective of working class Latinos from Arizona.”

At the beginning of the year, most Democrats were still shell-shocked by Trump’s election victory and were not inclined to harangue Gallego and others for trying to tack toward the political center. But Trump’s record on immigrant detentions and deportations has since shocked the conscience of many Democrats, and public opinion of Trump’s handling of immigration has gone underwater. The Laken Riley vote taken in January 2025 may end up being a vulnerability once primary voters go to the polls in 2028.

Another 2025 Senate floor vote that could lead to future political repercussions was on the GENIUS Act. The legislation passed with bipartisan support and ostensibly was a bid to regulate a type of cryptocurrency called stablecoins, but it was criticized by progressive financial reform advocates as full of holes. In The Atlantic, anti-Trump conservative David Frum argued that the new law could cause a chain of events leading to “shocks that reverberate through the global financial system.” Yet several potential Democratic 2028ers have their fingerprints on it, with Booker, Fetterman, Gallego, Slotkin and Khanna voting for the final measure. If stablecoins destabilize the economy by 2028, this 2025 vote could loom large.

One Democratic senator interested in 2028 who steered clear of these two controversial bills: Connecticut’s Chris Murphy. He also started a political action committee to help increase voter registration ahead of the 2026 midterms. In a November speech to Democrats in the traditionally early primary state of New Hampshire, he took some swipes at the Democratic Party establishment for poor messaging, and also complained the party has “become kind of addicted to litmus tests, and that made us a pretty ideologically pure party, but it made us a losing party.” Yet he hasn’t been able to dramatically demonstrate how he would message differently and navigate the party’s myriad interest groups.

As for Fetterman, we cannot offer him an A-for-Effort certificate this year. He has been defiant, but mainly toward fellow Democrats and the institution of the United States Senate itself. Early in the year he was dinged for high rates of absenteeism, though he has missed fewer votes since April. A searing profile in New York magazine citing former staff members raised questions about his mental fitness. Recent polling of Pennsylvania voters shows Fetterman deeply underwater with Democrats and newly popular among Republicans. He gave cryptic answers to NOTUS when asked about a presidential bid, including, “Accept the mystery. 2028 is gonna be crazy.” But there is no mystery. Any hope he could win a Democratic presidential nomination is gone. Getting through a Senate primary may be hard enough.

A-For-Effort Certificates

Governor category:

JB Pritzker, Josh Shapiro, Tim Walz, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Gretchen Whitmer, and Josh Green

While Ocasio-Cortez likely would not have to worry about competing against a fellow democratic socialist, she may have to worry about getting crowded out of the progressive populist lane, and by a billionaire no less: Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Unlike Newsom and some other Democrats, Pritzker hasn’t tried to recalibrate at all on immigration or trangender issues. During Trump’s first week back in office, Pritzker promised his state would “stand in the way of an unconstitutional order” related to immigration, and later waged legal battles to thwart Trump’s Chicago deployment of the National Guard. He’s ending the year by signing a bill that expands the state’s sanctuary laws.

In a fiery speech to members of the New Hampshire Democratic Party in April, Pritzker charged “do-nothing Democrats” with “want[ing] to blame our losses on our defense of Black people, of trans kids, of immigrants — instead of their own lack of guts and gumption.”

Still, Pritzker is only registering middling single-digit numbers in 2028 primary polls. That makes him little different from every other White House-curious Democratic governor not named Gavin, including Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro, Minnesota’s Tim Walz, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, Maryland’s Wes Moore, Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer and Hawaii’s Josh Green.

Each had their moment in the spotlight, for better or worse, over the course of 2025. Green, a medical doctor, called for the resignation of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because of his “anti-vaccine ideology.” Whitmer suffered an awkward moment, covering her face with a folder during an unscheduled Oval Office photo-op with Trump. Beshear was named the chair of the Democratic Governors Association and used his new perch to pen a Washington Post op-ed offering advice on how Democrats can woo rural voters. Moore, the only African American currently serving as governor, vetoed a bill to study reparations for slavery. Walz is dealing with the fallout of a scandal in which fraudulent entities billed the state government for social services that weren’t delivered, prompting Trump to scapegoat — and Walz to defend — Minnesota’s Somali American community. Shapiro, in April, was the target of an arsonist who blamed the Jewish governor for the deaths of Palestinians in the Israel-Hamas war, and he ended the year with a major profile treatment in The Atlantic.

Two incoming governors could also spark fresh presidential buzz. New Jersey’s Mikie Sherill and Virginia’s Abigail Spanberger each have strong national security resumes and each won their 2025 elections with impressive margins. But they won’t be in office long before needing to make a decision about pursuing the presidency.

Several governors convened this month for a DGA conference and talked up the value of having an accomplished, outside-the-Beltway government executive lead the 2028 ticket. But if they want that person to not be Newsom, they’re going to have to find a way to outdo Newsom’s considerable attention-grabbing skills.

THE REPUBLICANS

The Thomas Marshall Prize for Vice Presidential Existence

Vice President JD Vance

This award is in memory of Woodrow Wilson’s vice president, Thomas Marshall, who famously said, “Once there were two brothers. One ran away to sea. The other was elected vice president. And nothing was ever heard of either of them again.”

We kid. Readers of my past year-end presidential primary scorecards know I’m usually bullish on current and former vice presidents. In the modern primary era, the only veeps who ran and never secured their party’s nomination — Mike Pence and Dan Quayle — were boxed out, respectively, by their former running mate and former running mate’s son. Otherwise, primary voters are highly inclined to treat vice presidents as heirs apparent.

JD Vance ends 2025 having made great progress with forging the traditional bond vice presidents have with primary voters. In every GOP primary poll taken this year Vance is the runaway leader, often clearing or nearing 50 percent support, even when Trump’s eldest son Don Jr. is added to the mix. The tragically widowed Erika Kirk who now runs Turning Point USA gave Vance an early Christmas present by pledging her support for his assumed 2028 campaign.

Vice presidents typically struggle to distinguish themselves while playing second banana to their presidents. And Trump hasn’t exactly helped his underling by occasionally giving him equal billing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In October, while talking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump mused aloud about the 2028 primary: “We have JD obviously. The vice president is great. Marco’s great. I’m not sure if anybody would run against those two. I think if they formed a group it would be unstoppable.”

But Vance has learned how to emulate Trump’s all-publicity-is-good-publicity approach to politics with a steady stream of provocative statements — from demeaning Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “disrespectful” in the Oval Office in February to publicly urging his Hindu wife to convert to Christianity in November to declaring that under the Trump administration, “you don’t have to apologize for being white anymore” in December.

As with Trump, Vance’s incessantly confrontational posture comes with a downside: weak favorability among the broader electorate. In mid-December, Vance’s favorability in the Real Clear Politics average was a limp 40.6 percent, nearly six points lower than his average unfavorability. Vance will begin any presidential campaign as a polarizing figure, which is hardly fatal in our social media-driven political era, but could make him vulnerable if a 2026 midterm blue wave prompts rank-and-file Republicans to seek out candidates who are not fully in the Trump mold.

The Eager Sidekick Award

Secretary of State Marco Rubio

Almost 10 years ago, Rubio roasted Trump on the campaign trail: “He’s not going to make America great, he’s going to make America orange,” and “You know what they say about men with small hands? You can’t trust them!” Turning serious, Rubio said, “I will never allow the conservative movement to be taken over by a con artist.”

Rubio’s antagonism was fleeting. Once Trump became president, Rubio became a dutiful soldier in the Senate. And though Trump abandoned the hawkish internationalist foreign policy of the conservative movement, Rubio gamely accepted Trump’s second-term offer to lead the State Department and implement his foreign policy.

Rubio’s inclination toward submission is seemingly paying off. He’s become an influential force in the administration and Trump has even suggested Rubio could be the next president, slighting Vance and maybe some of his offspring. Yet true to form, instead of feeding the notion he is interested in jousting with Vance for the 2028 nomination, Rubio has reportedly told confidants that he would support Vance in 2028. That would be a canny move if he wants to become the running mate of the likely nominee, and if he’s willing to wait until 2032 or 2036 to slake his longstanding presidential thirst.

Yet beneath the surface, tensions may exist. During the infamous Vanity Fair photo shoot, Vance jokingly offered the photographer $1,000 if he made Rubio’s picture worse than his.

More substantively, Vance is deeply committed to an “America First” foreign policy that deprioritizes human rights concerns abroad and degrades the NATO alliance (“I just hate bailing Europe out again” Vance privately told top Trump officials in the infamous Signal chats that inadvertently included a journalist).

Amid some appearances that Rubio pulled the U.S. back from a Russia-favored plan to end the war in Ukraine and has helped push a militaristic regime change strategy in Venezuela, suspicions are growing among America First adherents that Rubio hasn’t fully converted.

All this is to say that Rubio’s standing on the right may be shakier than Trump’s 2028 musings otherwise suggest. Nevertheless, being mentioned in Trump’s musings is better than not.

At least, I’m sure Don Jr. feels that way.

The Roscoe Conkling Award for Achievement in Resignation

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene

As fans of Death by Lightning and the James Garfield presidency know, Roscoe Conkling was an imperious Republican senator from New York and defender of the spoils system. When Garfield wouldn’t appoint Conkling allies to key posts, Conkling huffily resigned with the belief he would be swiftly re-appointed by the New York State legislature in a show of his political strength. The plan backfired when the legislature snubbed him and his political career ended.

Now Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has resigned her seat after locking horns with Trump. Will her counter-intuitive flex fare any better than Conkling’s? There’s reason to think it could.

Greene’s close relationship with Trump imploded as she increasingly criticized Trump and Republican Party leadership for failing to address expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies and resisting release of the Epstein files.

But what seemed to be Trump’s last straw was an interview with NBC News published on Nov. 14 in which Greene lambasted Trump’s focus on global affairs. NBC provocatively headlined the story: “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene questions if Trump is still the ‘America First’ president.” Hours after the story published, Trump publicly rescinded his endorsement of Greene and branded her a “traitor.” One week later, Greene announced her resignation from the House, effective Jan. 5.

The resignation can easily be viewed as a sign of Trump’s strength and Greene’s weakness, a recognition by Greene that she might not survive a Trump-backed primary challenger for her current House seat. But Greene remained popular in her district, and she may be thinking a few steps ahead.

She has insisted she has no plans to run for president. But post-resignation announcement, she has embarked on quite a media tour for someone with no intention of running for something. And she has flatly said she isn’t running for governor or senator this year. That leaves one other office above her current station.

In resigning, Greene also staked out ideological territory occupied by few others in elective politics: the America First purist unmoored to Trump. She even went so far as to distinguish America First from MAGA during her recent 60 Minutes interview with CBS News’ Lesley Stahl:

STAHL: Are you MAGA?

GREENE: I’m America First.

STAHL: And that’s not the same as MAGA?

GREENE: MAGA is President Trump’s phrase. That’s his, his political policies. I call myself America First.

STAHL: But you’re, you’re not saying you’re MAGA. That’s over.

GREENE: I’m America First. Yep.

The challenge for Greene going forward is convincing more rank-and-file Republicans that Trump, as well as Vance, aren’t America First enough and she is the true keeper-of-the-flame. If Republicans begin to sour on Trump following a rough 2026 midterm election, yet aren’t interested in returning the party to its traditionally conservative roots, Greene will be well positioned to take advantage.

The Profile in Niceness Prize

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox

Granted, it may take a colossal midterm shellacking to convince rank-and-file Republicans to seek out the absolute antithesis of Donald Trump. But in that scenario, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox will be waiting for them with fresh baked cookies and hot chocolate.

I say that because in 2020 Cox gave protesters in front of his house fresh baked cookies and hot chocolate.

Cox has long cultivated a reputation for political civility, which was put to the test in 2025 under horrific circumstances when conservative activist Charlie Kirk was murdered in his state.

While Trump was trying to exploit the assassination to broadly tar the “radical left,” Cox used the unwelcome spotlight to reject such divisive tactics: “At some point we have to find an off-ramp, or else it’s going to get much worse.” He saved his blame for social media and urged people to “log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”

In November, Cox announced a deal to publish a book on reducing political polarization. And he ended the year by joining Shapiro for a bipartisan forum on “Finding Common Ground” that was televised on NBC, where he continued to pile on social media companies for monetizing division: “These are the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the history of the world, and they’re profiting off of destroying our kids and destroying our country, and they know it, and it’s very intentional.”

Upon announcing the book deal and in his NBC appearance, Cox insisted he isn’t running for president. And maybe he means it. Regardless, intentionally or not, he is carving out a place in the 2028 primary for a type of Republican not seen leading the party since the last guy not named Trump won the nomination — another nice guy with Utah ties named Mitt Romney.

Plaque for Potentially Delusional Persistence

Sen. Ted Cruz

If Marjorie Taylor Greene is blazing her own path by daring to criticize Trump’s foreign policy, Ted Cruz is trying to do the same by criticizing Tucker Carlson’s foreign policy. It’s not quite as politically daring, though it does represent an attempt to sharply shift the Republican Party’s platform back toward hawkish internationalism. Axios reported that Cruz’s forthright support of Israel and denouncement of Carlson’s platforming of the antisemite Nick Fuentes has impressed some in the GOP donor class.

Cruz took another indirect swipe at Trump by chastising Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr for pressuring ABC to cancel the late-night talk show of Trump critic Jimmy Kimmel, and even threatened to roll back FCC powers.

He has also built up a significant audience who listen to his thrice-a-week podcast Verdict with Ted Cruz. Ben Jacobs noted in POLITICO Magazine last month that the podcast gets up to 2 million monthly downloads, more than three times the size of Newsom’s.

Yet Newsom’s average poll share of the Democratic primary electorate is 10 times the size of Cruz’s on the Republican side. Polls may not be the equivalent of votes, but they are closer to it than downloads. For Cruz to be so far back in the pack, after a past presidential run and more than a decade of chasing headlines, suggests that Republican voters simply may not buy what he’s trying to sell.

The Milk Carton Award for Missing Politicians

Governor Category:

Ron DeSantis, Brian Kemp, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Glenn Youngkin

While Democrats boast about their deep bench of governors, Republican governors in 2025 largely went missing.

Florida’s once-omnipresent-now-term-limited Ron DeSantis began 2025 pushing the idea his wife Casey could succeed him next year. Then came allegations that the governor illegally funneled $10 million from a Medicaid settlement into a nonprofit organization run by Casey DeSantis before most of it ended up with a political action committee opposing a ballot initiative to legalize cannabis. No one yet has been charged with committing a crime, but an ongoing investigation is not a great backdrop to a gubernatorial campaign (even though Donald Trump might differ), and we haven’t seen Casey DeSantis take steps to launch one.

We used to see a lot more of Georgia’s Brian Kemp when he was facing Trump’s wrath about the 2020 vote count. And Kemp won real notice by winning re-nomination in 2022 despite Trump’s backing of a primary challenger. But since Trump won Georgia in 2024 there’s less for the two to argue over.

Having worked in Trump’s first-term White House before getting elected governor in Arkansas, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was already a national figure. In August, she raised the eyebrows of election watchers when she headlined a Republican event in the early primary state of South Carolina. But the speech lacked any newsworthy content and was quickly forgotten.

Two months prior she did something few Republicans try to do: get an op-ed published in The New York Times. Sanders bragged to the coastal elite readers about being the first governor in the country to enact antitrust law that prevents pharmacy benefit managers — who negotiate drug prices between pharmacies and insurance companies — from owning pharmacies with which they’re supposed to negotiate. It’s a novel policy solution to address rising health care costs. But we have little evidence that’s what Republican voters are looking for.

Finally, Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin sparked presidential buzz four years ago when he upset former Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe. But Youngkin’s star faded as he hemmed and hawed about running for president last year and as he failed to turn Virginia’s legislature red. Meanwhile, Trump lost the state last November and his lieutenant governor lost the race to succeed him this November.

Youngkin is now spending his final month in office squabbling with Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger over the state’s universities. Democrats won court decisions that effectively prevented Youngkin from filling 22 board positions at three higher institutions, including five at the University of Virginia, before Spanberger is sworn in. But at Youngkin’s urging and over Spanberger’s objection, the University of Virginia board is moving to name a new president before those vacancies are filled. One last stick-in-the-eye to Democrats would probably give Youngkin a fresh round of accolades from conservatives, but that’s well short of what he needs to join the top tier of 2028ers.

The stall.....................

Russia again appears to throw cold water on hopes for a Ukrainian peace deal

The Kremlin Monday said hostilities will continue after an alleged Ukrainian attack on Vladimir Putin's home, less than a day after a hopeful meeting in Florida.

By Eli Stokols and Diana Nerozzi

The Kremlin vowed Monday to ramp up hostilities on Ukraine in response to what it alleged was a “terroristic attack” on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s property — just a day after President Donald Trump said he was close to producing a deal that would bring peace to the region.

Trump, after a Sunday meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Mar-a-Lago, , sounded optimistic about getting closer to a peace agreement. But it was clear Monday that very little has changed as the war — both on the battlefield and in the information space — raged on.

Yuri Ushakov, a top Putin aide, said Monday that an alleged Ukrainian drone strike on the Russian president would trigger “the most serious response.” He also said Putin informed Trump of the attack by phone Monday morning.

The White House, when asked for comment, only pointed to a social media statement from press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying “President Trump has concluded a positive call with President Putin concerning Ukraine.”

Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that he “heard” about the attack, but didn’t know the details. “That would be too bad,” he said. “That would not be too good.” Asked about it a second time, the president sounded more credulous, stating that he was “angry” about any “offensive” attack by Ukraine would jeopardize the peace talks.

Zelenskyy, intent on getting Trump to see Putin as the primary impediment to peace, called the Kremlin’s allegation of a strike on the Russian leader’s residence “a complete fabrication intended to justify additional attacks against Ukraine, including Kyiv, as well as Russia’s own refusal to take necessary steps to end the war.”

Blasting the “typical lying tactics of the Russians,” Zelenskyy noted on X that Moscow has “already struck Kyiv, including the building of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine…Ukraine does not take steps that could weaken diplomacy. Russia always takes such steps. This is one of many things that sets us apart.”

The latest round of acrimony offered further evidence that, for whatever progress Trump and Zelenskyy said they made Sunday on a 20-point peace plan and negotiations about U.S. security guarantees, the two sides are still far apart.

The chief unresolved issue remains the fate of the Donbas region. About 15 percent of that strategic region in the East remains Ukrainian. The area is of particular interest to Russia, as capturing the last land parcel would give the Kremlin control of Ukrainian trenches. Zelenskyy has agreed to either keep the area Ukrainian, or make the land a demilitarized “free economic zone” — but Russia has continued to insist the land would ultimately be Russia’s.

That insistence has continued even after Trump’s most recent Mar-a-Lago meeting.

Putin spokesperson Dmitriy Peskov told reporters Monday “of course” the full transfer of Donbas to Russia is needed as part of a peace deal to which the Kremlin would agree. The total control of Donbas by Russia has been a nonstarter for Ukraine, which has fought nearly four years to defend the remaining parcel of land.

But the meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was more cordial and potentially productive than some of Zelenskyy’s past visits to the U.S. have seemed. The president praised the Ukraine leader’s courage. And both men made joint expressions of public optimism following two hours of talks.

Trump did not suggest, as he had previously, that Ukraine deserved equal blame for the war that began nearly four years ago with Russia’s invasion. But he continued to be a booster for Putin’s position, saying without evidence that the Russian president “wants to see [the war] ended.” He also said Putin, who has continued to pound Ukraine’s cities in recent days, is “going to be helping” with rebuilding Ukraine, and that Russia is interested in seeing its neighbor “succeeding” once the war has ended.

That comment elicited an eyeroll and chuckle from Zelenskyy, who stood at Trump’s side at a lectern during a short press conference after following their two hours of talks.

Trump also suggested that Ukraine’s refusal to cede additional territory could simply lead to Russia taking it by force in the future.

Peskov on Monday capitalized on Trump’s views. “Ukraine is losing lands and will lose them further,” he said.

One European official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state of negotiations, said any progress made is good. But, the person added, that the “bar is really low for what counts as a good meeting” between Trump and Zelenskyy.

“It’s good they seemed a bit closer, but listening to Trump go on and on about how he understands Putin and how he wants Ukraine to succeed — it’s beyond naive,” the official said.“And that’s actually the thing that’s preventing progress. Until Trump stops eating out of Putin’s hand and applying real pressure, he has no reason to really negotiate.”

Zelenskyy, however tactfully, made a similar point in one of several posts on X Monday. “Together with the Americans, we share [a] single position: the war must be ended through diplomacy, and Russia must be pressed into it – otherwise the war will continue,” he wrote.

Trump’s repeated declarations that Putin wants peace are at odds with what chief of staff Susie Wiles said was his personal view of the conflict. Wiles, in an interview with Vanity Fair published this month, said the president privately “thinks [Putin] wants the whole country” and isn’t interested in cutting a deal that gives Russia part or even all of the contested Donbas region.

Trump, who backed off the idea of a deadline for the peace talks, did not directly answer a question Sunday about what, if anything, he’d do to increase pressure on Moscow if negotiations fail. He instead accepted the grim possibility that the war would continue and “millions” more people would die.

In Ukraine, Trump’s characterization of the talks landed with a thud.

“It is absolutely painful for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people when we are sitting without electricity, without heat and running water during the winter because Russia chooses to terrorize us, to attack our peaceful cities,” Kira Rudik, a member of Ukrainian parliament, said in a Monday interview on CNN. “And at the same time, Putin lies to President Trump and President Trump allows him to continue doing so and allows him to continue doing so.”

Zelenskyy told reporters after leaving Mar-a-Lago Sunday evening that Trump is offering 15 years of security guarantees, and that he is pushing him to extend the time frame to 30, 40 or 50 years. He also emphasized that any peace plan that includes territorial concessions couldn’t be adopted without a referendum in Ukraine. And he expressed doubt about Russia’s willingness to agree to a 60-day ceasefire that would allow for a public vote.

Asylum seekers

Trump tells asylum seekers to apply for refuge elsewhere

The effort represents the latest attempt by the Trump administration to curtail immigration and meet its ambitious annual deportation goal.

By Myah Ward and Eric Bazail-Eimil

The Trump administration has long seen asylum requests as “a huge loophole” in its effort to close the border. Over the last two months, it’s become apparent how it intends to close it.

The Department of Homeland Security is asking courts to summarily dismiss asylum claims without a hearing and send migrants to a third country where they can pursue relief, even if they have no connection to that place. The federal government is relying on so-called safe third country agreements Trump officials have reached with a number of nations, including Uganda, Honduras and Ecuador — countries that have a reputation for destabilizing gang violence or a history of human-rights abuses.

The effort represents the latest attempt by the Trump administration to curtail immigration to the United States and meet its ambitious annual deportation goal of 1 million people. And it comes as asylum claims have increased significantly: There were nearly 900,000 asylum claims before the Executive Office of Immigration Review in Fiscal Year 2024, up from roughly 200,000 per year during Trump’s first term.

“Asylum was not designed to provide people a backdoor way to get to a country of their choosing,” said a senior administration official, granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking about the strategy. “If the United States is confident that they can be successfully removed to another country where they will not be threatened, then there’s no reason or expectation that they should be allowed to remain here.”

The Trump administration’s strategy was bolstered in October when the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative body that oversees immigration courts, said judges should weigh third-country removal before an asylum case is considered in the U.S. The endorsement turbocharged the effort, and in November, DHS attorneys asked judges to dismiss nearly 5,000 cases, more than twice the amount in October and four times the amount in September, according to a recent analysis of immigration court data. It is not clear that all 5,000 were because DHS wanted to send someone to a third country.

In exchange for accepting migrants, these other countries have usually received less U.S. condemnation for alleged human rights abuses and greater security assistance.

Immigration attorneys and advocates, alarmed by the latest trend, argue that it’s a further erosion of the U.S. asylum system in the United States.

“The administration wants to demolish our humanitarian protection system,” said Rebekah Wolf, a staff attorney with the immigration justice campaign and policy department of the American Immigration Council. “They do not want to have people have the ability to apply for asylum in the United States.”

But the administration official countered that anyone who genuinely fears persecution should only be concerned about their safety.

“They shouldn’t care about what specific location,” the official said. “Many [immigration groups] somehow think that it’s bad to be doing this — that everyone should get a hearing, no matter anything else. But the reality from our perspective is, it is the law. And you may disagree with the law, but the way to address that is through Congress.”

DHS’s strategy provides another example of how President Donald Trump’s team learned from and built upon efforts of his first term. In 2019, DHS and the Justice Department issued an interim final rule allowing the U.S. to enter into third-country agreements with Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala — barring migrants from applying for asylum in the U.S. if the administration determined they could do so safely in one of the other nations. In a federal lawsuit filed that year — revived this September — asylum seekers and immigration groups argued the agreements were unlawful. Administration officials expect other lawsuits to be filed against their latest strategy.

This term, the White House has not only expanded efforts to strike these agreements with less stable nations, but has also cut other deals with countries willing to accept migrant deportees. For months, the administration has deported migrants to African nations, including South Sudan and Eswatini. The administration also sent more than 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country’s mega-prison for months.

And this month, Palau, an archipelago of roughly 350 small islands in the Pacific Ocean, inked a deal with the Trump administration to take up to 75 migrants in exchange for aid, another example of how the White House is looking to third-countries to accelerate deportations of people who cannot be returned to their home countries.

As for asylum protections, supporters of the administration argue that the system has long been abused, and they are simply course correcting to bring the program in line with its original intent.

“No one who has passed through other countries where they’re not being persecuted should get asylum [in the United States]. If you’ve passed through other countries, you’ve effectively ignored other opportunities to claim asylum,” said Mark Krikorian, head of the Center for Immigration Studies think tank, which favors restrictions on immigration. “It’s a way to deter bogus asylum claims.”

A DHS spokesperson said the agency is working to remove all unauthorized immigrants from the United States, while “ensuring they receive all available legal process, including a hearing before an immigration judge.”

“Asylum Cooperative Agreements,” as DHS calls them, “are lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims” the spokesperson said. “DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system.”

DHS said last month that the Trump administration is on pace to shatter deportation records, projecting nearly 600,000 removals by the end of the president’s first year, surpassing the 400,000 deportations that marked the peak for the Obama administration.

Since Trump returned to office, the White House has aggressively targeted the asylum system and tried to accelerate deportations. That has included an aggressive effort to shrink the case backlog in the immigration courts, which EOIR says has now dropped to less than 3.75 million cases from 4.18 million in January.

“The Trump administration knows that the backlog at the immigration courts is a huge obstacle to their mass deportation campaign,” said Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an immigration lawyer who works as an analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. “They’re trying to speed up and close out as many of those cases as they can.”

I am back

I had a long break for some personal tasks, but what did I miss??

Oh yea, more of the shit show....

Absolute bullshit

‘Absolute bullshit’: Endangered House Republican blasts leaders over impending Obamacare lapse

New York Rep. Mike Lawler called it “idiotic not to have an up or down vote on this issue.”

By Benjamin Guggenheim and Meredith Lee Hill

An infuriated Rep. Mike Lawler left a closed-door House Republican meeting Tuesday and sounded off on GOP leaders who are planning to allow key Obamacare subsidies to expire in two weeks.

“This is absolute bullshit,” the New York Republican said.

“I think it’s idiotic not to have an up-or-down vote on this issue,” he told reporters of leaders’ refusal to hold a vote on a modified version of the expiring subsidies. “It is political malpractice.”

Lawler also laid into House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, arguing that Democrats don’t actually want to compromise on the issue and instead want to use health care as a political cudgel against the GOP in the midterms.

“They want to kill it. They want the issue,” said Lawler. “That’s why [Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer put a nonsensical three-year vote on the floor of the Senate when given an opportunity.”

At the same time, Lawler did not rule out joining a Democratic-led discharge petition that would force a vote on a three-year extension to send a message to GOP leaders.

“All options are on the table,” he said.

Lawler’s outburst came after Speaker Mike Johnson told his members in the closed-door meeting that he’s moving forward with a Wednesday vote on a GOP health care bill that would not extend the expiring Obamacare subsidies, according to four people in the room who were granted anonymity to describe the closed-door comments.

Lawler stood up in the meeting, two of the people said, to call Republican leaders’ decision to allow the expiration “a mistake.”

Johnson pushed back on the criticism from Lawler and allies such as Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) at a Tuesday news conference.

“Fitzpatrick and Lawler and the others are fighting tooth-an-nail for their constituents — I understand that as well as anyone, because I’m the one in their districts campaigning with them,” Johnson told reporters, adding that “the solution that is being sought by Democrats would further harm the system.”

Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed Tuesday he will not allow a House vote this week to extend expiring Obamacare subsidies — a reversal from last week when a GOP leadership aide said the process “would allow” for an amendment vote.

“In the end, there was not an agreement,” Johnson told reporters, noting the divides in his conference over the subsidies.

I am out off the office...

 Out for a few days

Out today, back tomorrow

Grievances about immigrants

Trump's speech on combating inflation turns to grievances about immigrants

By The Associated Press

On the road in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, President Donald Trump tried to emphasize his focus on combating inflation, yet the issue that has damaged his popularity couldn't quite command his full attention.

The president told the crowd gathered at a casino and resort in Mount Pocono that inflation was no longer a problem and that Democrats had used the term "affordability" as a "hoax" to hurt his reputation. But his remarks weaved wildly to include grievances he first raised behind closed doors in his first term in 2018 — and later denied saying — asking why the U.S. doesn't have more immigrants from Scandinavia.

"Why is it we only take people from s—-hole countries, right?" Trump said onstage. "Why can't we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few?"

Trump said he objected to taking immigrants from "hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries." He added for emphasis that those places "are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime."

Tuesday's gathering in the swing state — and in a competitive House district — was an official White House event, yet it seemed more like one of his signature campaign rallies that his chief of staff said he would hold regularly ahead of next year's midterms. But instead of being in an arena that could draw several thousand attendees, it was held in a conference center ballroom at the Mount Airy Casino Resort in Mount Pocono, a small town of about 3,000 residents.

Voters starting to blame lasting inflation on Republicans

Following dismal results for Republicans in last month's off-cycle elections, the White House has sought to convince voters that the economy will emerge stronger next year and that any anxieties over inflation have nothing to do with Trump.

He displayed a chart comparing price increases under his predecessor, Joe Biden, to prices under his own watch to argue his case. But the overall inflation rate has climbed since he announced broad tariffs in April and left many Americans worried about their grocery, utility and housing bills.

"I have no higher priority than making America affordable again," Trump said. "They caused the high prices and we're bringing them down."

As the president spoke, his party's political vulnerabilities were further seen as Miami voters chose Eileen Higgins to be their first Democratic mayor in nearly 30 years. Higgins defeated the Trump-endorsed Republican Emilio Gonzalez.

The president's reception in the county hosting his Tuesday rally showed he could still appeal to the base, but it was unable to settle questions of whether he could hold together his 2024 coalition. Monroe County flipped to Trump last year after having backed Biden in 2020, helping the Republican win the swing state of Pennsylvania and return to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

As home to the Pocono Mountains, the county has largely relied on tourism for skiing, hiking, hunting and other activities as a source of jobs. Its proximity to New York City — under two hours by car — has also attracted people seeking more affordable housing.

In Monroe County, people agree that prices are a problem

But what seems undeniable — even to Trump supporters in Monroe County — is that inflation seems to be here to stay.

Lou Heddy, a retired maintenance mechanic who voted for Trump last year, said he's noticed in the past month alone that his and his wife's grocery bills have risen from $175 to $200, and he's not sure Trump can bring food prices down.

"Once the prices get up for food, they don't ever come back down. That's just the way I feel. I don't know how the hell he would do it," said Heddy, 72.

But Suzanne Vena, a Democratic voter, blames Trump's tariffs for making life more expensive, as she struggles with rising bills for food, rent and electricity on a fixed income. She remembers Trump saying that he would stop inflation.

"That's what we were originally told," said Vena, 66. "Did I believe it? That's another question. I did not."

The area Trump visited could help decide control of the House in next year's midterm elections.

Trump held his rally in a congressional district held by first-term Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan, who is a top target of Democrats. Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti, a Democrat, is running for the nomination to challenge him.

Speaking to the crowd before Trump, Bresnahan said the administration was working to lower costs, but voters "aren't asking for partisan arguments — they're asking for results."

It's not clear if Trump can motivate voters in Monroe County to show up in next year's election if they're worried about inflation.

Nick Riley, 38, said he's cutting back on luxuries, like going out to eat, as he absorbs higher bills for food and electricity and is having a hard time finding a good deal on a used car. Riley voted for Trump in 2020, but he sat out the 2024 election and plans to do so again next year.

"We're all broke. It doesn't matter whether you support Republicans or support Democrats," Riley said. "We're all broke, and we're all feeling it."

Trump to start holding more rallies before midterm elections

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said on the online conservative talk show "The Mom View" that Trump would be on the campaign trail next year to engage supporters who otherwise might sit out a congressional race.

Wiles, who helped manage Trump's 2024 campaign, said most administrations try to localize midterm elections and keep the president out of the race, but she intends to do the opposite of that.

"We're actually going to turn that on its head," Wiles said, "and put him on the ballot because so many of those low-propensity voters are Trump voters."

The challenge for Trump is how to address the concerns of voters about the economy while simultaneously claiming that the economy is enjoying a historic boom.

Asked on a Politico podcast how he'd rate the economy, Trump leaned into grade inflation by answering "A-plus," only to then amend his answer to "A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus."

Trump says economy is strong, but Americans should buy fewer dolls

The U.S. economy has shown signs of resilience with the stock market up this year and overall growth looking solid for the third quarter. But many Americans see the prices of housing, groceries, education, electricity and other basic needs as swallowing up their incomes, a dynamic that the Trump administration has said it expects to fade next year with more investments in artificial intelligence and manufacturing.

So far, the public has been skeptical about Trump's economic performance. Just 33% of U.S. adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a November survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

But Trump indicated that his tariffs and other policies were helping industries such as the steel sector. He said those industries mattered for the country as he then specifically told Americans that they should buy fewer pencils and dolls from overseas.

"You don't need 37 dolls for your daughter," he told the crowd. "Two or three is nice."

Records from 2019 case can be released

Judge rules Epstein grand jury records from 2019 case can be released

Aoife Walsh

A federal judge in New York has ruled the US Department of Justice can publicly release grand jury records from Jeffrey Epstein's 2019 sex trafficking case.

US District Judge Richard Berman's ruling reverses his previous decision to keep the material sealed. He cited a new law passed by Congress requiring the justice department to release files about Epstein.

In his latest ruling, Judge Berman said the victims have the right to "have their identity and privacy protected", adding that their "safety and privacy are paramount".

Esptein was charged with sex trafficking in July 2019. He died in a New York prison cell a month later while awaiting trail.

Judge Berman in August had denied the justice department's request because of concerns about "possible threats to victims' safety and privacy".

But in Wednesday's ruling, he said the materials could now be released because of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by US President Donald Trump last month.

The law requires the justice department to release investigative material related to Epstein by 19 December, including unclassified records, documents and communications.

It also allows the department to withhold files that involve active criminal investigations or raise privacy concerns.

Judge Berman is the third federal judge to grant similar requests from the justice department since the new law was introduced. On Tuesday, another judge made a similar ruling in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 for her role in facilitating Epstein's abuse.

During her trial, prosecutors argued Maxwell recruited and groomed girls, some as young as 14, between 1994 and 2004, before they were abused by Epstein. She is serving a 20-year sentence.

Last Friday, a judge in Florida granted a different request to unseal grand jury transcripts from another investigation into Epstein from 2005 and 2007.

Getty Images Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell pictured together in 2005.Getty Images

A judge made a similar ruling in the case of Ghislaine Maxwell on Tuesday

The Trump administration has faced months of pressure over the Epstein files. The president was a friend of Epstein's, but has said they fell out in the early 2000s, years before the disgraced financier was first arrested.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, he promised to make the files public, and early in the year his administration released thousands of pages of documents from the Epstein investigation – mostly flight logs.

However, justice department officials in July said in a memo no further material would be released.

That prompted anger from within both parties, and lawmakers introduced a resolution forcing the files' release.

Trump, who previously dismissed calls to release the files, signed the bill into law in November marking a major reversal in his position.

The family of Virginia Giuffre, an Epstein victim who died by suicide earlier this year, said Trump signing the bill was "nothing short of monumental".

The files which must be made public this month are different to the documents released by the House Oversight Committee, which had subpoenaed Epstein's estate earlier in the year.

Those documents included images of Jeffrey Epstein's US Virgin Islands home, which showed several bedrooms, a room with masks on a wall and a phone with names written on speed-dial buttons.

Multiple survivors have alleged that they were trafficked to and abused on the island, known as Little St James, which Epstein purchased in 1998.

The images from 2020 also showed what appeared to be a dental chair, and another room that had a black chalkboard on the wall with the words "truth", "deception" and "power" scrawled across it.

The committee's Democratic leader, Robert Garcia, said the material was released to "ensure public transparency".

Republicans, who are in the majority on the committee, criticised Democrats for releasing selective information in advance and then released a further batch of documents.