Posts tagged with "HuffPost"

Obama HOPE poster artist looks FORWARD with new Kamala Harris design

August 16, 2024

Shepard Fairey, the artist and activist behind the iconic Barack ObamaHOPEposter that grew to symbolize the former president’s 2008 campaign, revealed his latest political work of Vice President Kamala Harris on social media on Thursday, August 15, reports HuffPost.

The new design from Fairey—the founder of OBEY Clothing, whose Obama design was later added to the National Portrait Gallery—depicts Harris looking upward in a mostly blue and green sketch. The word, “FORWARD,” appears at the bottom of the print while a red, circular KH symbol is seen to her side.

Fairey, in a post to his @obeygiant Instagram page, pointed to the Democratic nominee’s “We’re not going back” call and wrote that the words “summarize the moment we are in.”

“And in order not to go back, we must go FORWARD!” Fairey wrote.

He continued, “While we have not achieved all the goals we might be seeking, we are making progress—all in the face of expanding threats and regressive political adversaries.”

Fairey emphasized, “If we act, we can move forward our desire for a healthy planet, for corporate accountability; toward equality, and away from racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia, for equitable access to opportunity, for full access to the medical care we want or need, for fair and just immigration policies.”

Fairey, who said in 2015 that Obama didn’t live up to his “HOPE” poster, described the Democratic ticket of Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as “our best chance to move forward.”

“They are our best chance to push back on encroaching fascism and threats to democracy, and our best chance for creating the world we all desire and deserve,” wrote the artist, who encouraged followers to check their voter registration status.

“Politics is messy … but messy is no excuse for checking out. Messy is the work and the work can be joyful. Messy is what it takes to get through the daunting mess in pursuit of a better future. But we only win if we show up,” he said.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Freckles are ‘in’ now—and people who grew up hating theirs have thoughts

July 8, 2024

Growing up with freckles, lifestyle and wellness influencer Vic Styles heard all of the standard-issue insults about the tiny specks: “Your face looks dirty.” “Could I play connect-the-dots with them?”

Having classmates zero in on her face admittedly got under Styles’ skin. She absolutely hated her freckles for years, and since she couldn’t find a foundation that fully covered them, she just had to live with the spots.

But things have changed: Now 38, Styles loves the constellation of freckles across her face. Instead of covering them, she looks for ways to accentuate them with her makeup, reports HuffPost.

“I let them live in their fullest glory, if you will, and I really love the summertime because they tend to pop a little bit more,” she recently told HuffPost. “I think that they’re probably one of the most favorite things about my face. I think they’re really unique.”

It doesn’t hurt that freckles are very much “in” these days. For a long time, freckles—essentially sun spots caused by overactive pigment cells—were considered blemishes in need of coverage or even skin bleaching.

As early as 1910, Pond’s was advertising vanishing cream to banish freckles, while in later years, people started lasering them off.

Now, people draw on freckles with makeup―or use broccoli as a stamp (inventive!) to achieve the specked effect. With the dorky Pippi Longstocking connotations long gone, some even get a freckled look with microblading—a semipermanent tattooing process in which faux freckles are carefully pricked across the cheeks (or wherever else you want spots).

Indeed, freckles are said to be Meghan Markle’s personal favorite feature.

And how does Styles feel about them being trendy now? A part of me is a little upset, maybe jealous, that this trend happened now,” she said. “Why couldn’t freckles have been cool when I was 13, when maybe I wouldn’t have gotten made fun of and had an insecurity about them?”

But as a longtime freckle possessor, Styles is also hyped about the trend. “It’s a fun way for people to reinvent themselves, to play with makeup to alter their looks in a nonpermanent way,” she said.

“And I love the broccoli trend. I think it’s very creative. Who would have thought that broccoli could make the perfect freckles?”

She added, “All of us should just be celebrated and embraced for our differences, whether it’s freckles, birthmarks, alopecia, vitiligo —whatever it may be.”

Research contact: @HuffPost

New poll finds one Democrat absolutely trouncing Trump

July 4, 2024

A new poll finds President Joe Biden tied with Donald Trump, with most other potential Democratic replacement candidates running behind the former president.

Except for one, reports HuffPost.

Michelle Obama—author, attorney, and wife of former President Barack Obamahas a double-digit lead over Trump (50%-39%), according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The new poll also finds that 56% of voters, including 33% of Democrats, want Biden to drop out of the race amid growing concerns over his age and cognitive health, which were exacerbated by last week’s muddled performance at his debate with Trump.

The poll finds 46% of voters, including 19% of Republicans, want Trump to drop out.

The two are tied with 40% each in the new poll, while Vice President Kamala Harris trails Trump by 1 percentage point (43%-42%), well within the poll’s 3.5 percentage point margin of error.

Trump leads California Governor Gavin Newsom by 3 percentage points, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear by 4, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer by 5, and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker by 6, although they also suffer from lower name recognition.

Michelle Obama doesn’t have that problem. She’s also the only candidate in the poll above water in another key factor: 55% have a favorable opinion of Obama, versus 42% unfavorable.

Obama hasn’t exactly been warm to the idea of running for president.

“I’ve never expressed any interest in politics. Ever,” she told Oprah Winfrey last year. “I mean, I agreed to support my husband. He wanted to do it, and he was great at it. But at no point have I ever said, ‘I think I want to run.’ Ever. So, I’m just wondering: Does what I want have anything to do with anything? Does who I choose to be have anything to do with it?”

She said running for office has to be in your soul.

“It is not in my soul,” she said. “Service is in my soul.”

However, she has also said she is “terrified” about the potential outcome of this year’s election with Trump on the ballot again.

Research contact: https://x.com/HuffPost

Alito says one side of political fight is ‘going to win,’ private event recordings reveal

June 11, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that the political rift between America’s left and right would be extremely difficult to repair—and that one side was “going to win”—according to secretly recorded comments at a private event earlier this month, reports HuffPost.

Lauren Windsor, who describes herself as a documentarian and journalist, shared recordings of two encounters with Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts at an annual event held by the Supreme Court Historical Society on June 3. She said she posed as a religious conservative and held discussions with both men.

At one point, Windsor told Alito she didn’t believe conservatives could “negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for polarization to end.”

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replied in the recorded conversation. “One side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised.”

Windsor went on to say that people who “believe in God have got to keep fighting … to return our country to a place of godliness.”

“I agree with you,” Alito said. “I agree with you.”

The recordings were released as the court faces new ethics questions raised by reports that two flags affiliated with the January 6, 2021, insurrectionists were flown outside Alito’s homes in recent years. The justice has refused calls to recuse himself from cases before the court related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump and to the former president’s claims of absolute immunity from prosecution for his actions while in office.

Windsor’s conversations with Roberts were far more confrontational. As Windsor attempted to tell the chief justice the nation needs to be put on a more “moral path,” Roberts pushed back.

“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” he asked. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”

When Windsor again tried to say that America is a “Christian nation,” Roberts took umbrage.

“I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation,” he said. “I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”

The chief justice went on to say the court’s role in trying times is “nothing new,” pointing to the fractured political landscape after the Vietnam War.

Windsor belongs to the society and bought a ticket to the event using her real name, but she did not identify herself as a journalist or tell the justices she was recording them. She told The New York Times that she thought keeping the recording secret was the only way to get the justices to share their honest thoughts and provide proof, “otherwise, it’s just my word against theirs.”

“We have a court that has refused to submit to any accountability whatsoever—they are shrouded in secrecy” she told the Times on Monday. “I don’t know how, other than going undercover, I would have been able to get answers to these questions.”

The nonprofit society is billed as a nonpartisan group focused on preserving and collecting the history of the Supreme Court and raising public awareness about its work.

However, the body, whose honorary chair is Justice Roberts—and which counts Harlan Crow, Justice Clarence Thomas’ controversial benefactor, among its board of trustees—has faced controversy in the past few years.

The New York Times in 2022 reported that it had become a conduit of influence-peddling by “corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court,” accounting for 60% of its contributions since 2003.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Is it ever okay to recline your seat on a plane? Etiquette experts settle the hot-button issue.

June 6, 2024

One aspect of flying that really strikes a nerve with many travelers is seat reclining. In November, a video of a screaming match between passengers over one woman’s choice to recline went viral. Three months earlier, there was another viral clip of a  passenger who used her arms to keep the seat in front of her in place during a flight from Paris to Los Angeles, reports HuffPost.

Every time these incidents make headlines, there’s renewed discussion around a divisive travel question: Is it okay to recline or is it just plain rude?

“This is a volatile subject, and there are people on both sides of this debate,” Diane Gottsman, an etiquette expert and corporate trainer specializing in adult behavior, tells HuffPost.

But from an etiquette standpoint, is there an objective right answer to the question of whether or not to recline? Below, Gottsman and other experts break down the best practices.

So, is it okay to recline?

“Whether to recline your seat is a matter of polite awareness,” says Jodi R.R. Smith, the president of Mannersmith Etiquette Consulting. “We want to be able to maximize our comfort without inconveniencing anyone else. This is quite a challenge in the shrinking seats found nowadays on airplanes.”

Some might argue that if they purchased a ticket for an airplane seat that reclines, then they have the right to take advantage of that function. But etiquette coach Tami Claytor believes this mentality highlights an important etiquette rule: “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it.”

“Etiquette isn’t just about which fork to use. At its fundamental level it is thinking of others,” Claytor says. “As such, reclining your seat and interfering with someone else’s comfort violates the basic principle of etiquette.”

There are situations in which reclining can be appropriate and more in line with etiquette standards, however. The most important thing is to consider the individual circumstances of your flight, your fellow passenger and yourself.

“For a short flight, it would be most polite to keep your seat up unless you are certain you are not inconveniencing someone behind you,” Gottsman says.

So if the seat behind yours is empty, recline all you want! If there’s a very small child, you can probably recline without encroaching into their space much as well.

The same goes for premium cabins. “For those fortunate enough to be seated in first or business class, this is not an issue,” Smith adds. “There is ample room to recline without impacting any other passenger’s personal space.”

Otherwise, try to stay upright during short-haul flights. This makes things much easier for passengers who are very tall or want to use their laptop or drink a beverage on the tray table during the flight.

“If your reclining will negatively impact the person behind you, such as someone with their knee in a brace, you should not recline,” Smith added.

Reclining can also be acceptable for those passengers who are particularly tall, struggle with back problems, or need space to hold their little ones.

“If the passenger is so tall they must fold themselves origami-style into the seat, a few extra inches can make a world of difference, and they may recline after take-off,” Smith says. “If the passenger is juggling a toddler on their lap, they may recline as well. If you do not need the space, such as a five-year-old in a seat, there is no need to recline.”

The rules are a bit different for long-haul flights, during which reclining is more appropriate.

“If it’s a long flight, it’s unreasonable to expect each passenger not to do what they can to get comfortable,” Gottsman noted. “If it’s a red eye, sleep is important and reclining is acceptable—especially since everyone else is reclining at the same time.”

If you’re going to recline, what’s the right way to do it?

There are best practices for executing your recline if you feel so inclined.

“Look behind you to see if there is someone sitting in the seat directly behind,” Gottsman says. “Check for any issues such as long legs, tray table down, soda on tray, computer on tray, or a baby on their lap. Let the person know you would like to recline. If you are adamant about reclining, and there is no physical reason why you shouldn’t, it’s within reason, but only if it’s not going to physically impede or harm another person.”

Be friendly and either ask if you might recline your seat, or just share that you plan to recline your seat.

“If the person behind you isn’t feeling quite so magnanimous and takes umbrage with your request, try negotiating a reasonable compromise such as slightly reclining your seat or only reclining for a specified period of time,” Claytor suggestes. “You never know, a polite conversation could lead to a new friendship.”

Take breaks from reclining or move your seat back upright when the crew distributes food and drinks, or the person behind you whips out their laptop.

In order to show consideration and respect for your fellow traveler, also consider easing into the lean and going for a partial recline if possible. “Start out slow to see how you can feel comfortable without potentially going all the way back,” Gottsman advises.

Another important factor in the reclining conversation is the timing of when you do it.“It certainly is not proper etiquette to recline your seat as soon as you sit while additional passengers are boarding and settling in their seat,” said Jackie Vernon-Thompson, the founder of From the Inside-Out School of Etiquette. “Reclining your seat during the boarding process, is quite inconsiderate because the back of the seat will obstruct the path and cause the passenger attempting to sit in the seat behind the reclined seat to perhaps have a challenge sitting.”

Unless there are major delays while the plane is parked, your pre-takeoff reclining time will likely be short-lived anyway.

“The Federal Aviation Administration considers takeoff and landing two very critical stages in a flight,” Vernon-Thompson says. “Therefore, they mandate that all seats are placed in an upright position. If reclined at those stages, and there is an emergency, it may prevent passengers from having easy access to the aisle and/or the seat could aggressively slam forward.”

And even if you recline later at a more appropriate time, the flight crew might ask you to move back up.  “Be mindful that at any time during the flight, the pilot and/or flight attendants reserve the right to require all seats in the upright position,” Vernon-Thompson says. “It is of course proper etiquette to adhere to the request.

The main thing to keep in mind is that you’re in a relatively small communal space—not your own living room recliner. And you and your fellow passengers are all in this together.

Research contact: @HuffPost

‘Make my day, pal’: Joe Biden challenges Donald Trump to a presidential debate

May 15, 2024

On Wednesday, May 15, President Joe Biden released a video challenging presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to debate him, reports HuffPost.

“Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020 and since then he hasn’t shown up to debate. Now he’s acting like he wants to debate me again,” Biden said in the video, which was posted to X, formerly called Twitter.

“Well, make my day, pal,” Biden added. “I’ll even do it twice. So let’s pick the dates, Donald. I hear you’re free on Wednesdays.”

Not long after posting the video, Biden said on social media that he accepted an invitation from CNN for a June 27 debate: “Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place.”

Biden’s campaign proposed two general election debates to be held in June and September prior to the start of early voting. The campaign also said it wanted the debates hosted by news organizations rather than by the Commission on Presidential Debates because the schedule of three debates proposed by the commission occurred too late, after the start of early voting, an objection also raised by Trump’s campaign.

Trump told Fox News he agreed with Biden’s proposed schedule.

Trump skipped a 2020 presidential debate when the organizers announced it would be held virtually amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The former president also skipped the 2024 GOP primary debates.

But in recent months, Trump has been taunting Biden on the campaign trail—calling for more debates than usual and placing an empty lectern on the stage at his rallies to represent where Biden could stand.

Anytime, anyplace,” Trump said of debating Biden at a rally earlier this year.

Trump also suggested a presidential debate at the courthouse in New York City, where he is on trial for falsifying business records related to hush money paid to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Trump has been occupied with the proceedings every day of the week except Wednesday, when the trial is not in session, giving him a day off.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Trump lawyer tells SCOTUS that even a military coup order would be immune from prosecution

April 25, 2024

An order from a president to the military to conduct a coup to remain in office “might well be an official act,” former President Donald Trump’s lawyer told the Supreme Court in oral arguments on Thursday, April 25, on the question of whether Trump’s attempted coup is immune from prosecution, reports HuffPost.

Trump’s claims that his actions leading up to the violent assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, are immune from prosecution received skeptical questioning from nearly all of the nine justices—but none more on-point than Elena Kagan’s question about 40 minutes in.

“How about if the president orders the military to stage a coup?” Kagan asked.

“That might well be an official act,” Trump attorney John Sauer answered.

Trump was not at the Supreme Court during the oral arguments on Thursday; but rather was in a different courtroom, in lower Manhattan, in the early phase of an unrelated criminal trial.

He has made it clear, though, that he is keenly aware of the import of the high court’s coming decision. On Monday, he posted an all-capital-letters screed demanding that all actions taken by a sitting president be given “complete & total” immunity, even those that “cross the line.” He ended with: “God bless the Supreme Court.”

Thursday morning, just minutes before he was due in the New York City courtroom, he posted three more times about the immunity case: “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”

Trump has previously stated that he hoped the three justices he nominated―Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett―would be loyal to him and has subsequently complained that they and the others selected by Republican presidents have treated him unfairly in an attempt to appear nonpartisan.

Trump’s lawyers have tried the same immunity arguments twice, before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan and a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In both courts, the judges sided with prosecutors who argued that a former president should have no more immunity from prosecution than anyone else and that, specifically in this case, Trump’s actions to overturn an election were an attack on the foundations of the republic.

During the appeals court oral arguments, one of the judges asked Trump’s lawyer if, under Trump’s immunity theory, a president could order SEAL Team Six to murder a political opponent and then never face criminal charges. Trump’s lawyer eventually answered yes, that was a possibility.

With Trump running for his old job, the timing of the high court’s decision may be as important as its substance. A relatively quick ruling simply affirming the appeals court decision that Trump’s action leading up to and on January 6, 2021, are not immune from prosecution could allow Chutkan to begin a trial by late summer, which would likely produce a verdict by Election Day, on November 5.

Although most legal experts doubt that the justices would decide that a president enjoys blanket immunity, some believe they could rule that a president does have immunity for official acts―and then send the case back to Chutkan to hold a hearing to determine whether the charges against Trump involve official actions on behalf of the country or private ones for his own personal or political gain.

Such a hearing, while it would bring forth testimony from former Trump White House officials damaging to Trump, could mean that a trial may not conclude by November 5—particularly if the Supreme Court does not issue a ruling until the close of its term at the end of June.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Bernie Sanders calls on Biden to block U.S. funding for Netanyahu’s ‘war machine’

March 12, 2024

On Sunday, March 10, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called on President Joe Biden to deny Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more U.S. funding for his “war machine” unless Israel allows for more humanitarian aid to reach civilians in Gaza, reports HuffPost.

In an interview with CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Sanders said the ongoing offensive—which already has killed over 31,000 Palestinians and displaced millions, according to local officials, cannot be allowed to continue with the blessing of the USA.

“We are looking at the possibility of hundreds of thousands of children starving to death,” Sanders said. “The United States of America cannot be complicit in this mass slaughter of children.”

Health officials in Gaza have said 20 people, including children, have died of malnutrition, according to The Associated Press, with many warning the situation is likely to deteriorate even further.

Taking a harsher stance toward Netanyahu to pressure him to take into account the suffering of innocent Palestinians, Sanders added, would be both the moral thing to do and “good politics” for Biden.

“The truth is, whether you’re a conservative Republican or a progressive, you do not want to see children in Palestine starve to death,” Sanders said.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu is planning to expand his country’s offensive to the southernmost city of Rafah, where millions of Palestinians have sought refuge during the conflict, appearing to ignore calls from the USA to back away from that plan.

Sanders warned attacking Rafah would be an “unmitigated disaster,” adding, “My view is, of course, we cannot support an attack of that kind on Rafah,” Sanders told CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “Bottom line is, though, Netanyahu has got to be told no more money for his war machine, unless there is humanitarian aid coming in to feed the people.”

Biden has warned Netanyahu against going ahead with a Rafah offensive—but said, ultimately, even if Israel did proceed with its plans, he wouldn’t pull U.S. funding for the country.

“It is a red line, but I’m never going to leave Israel,” Biden told MSNBC. “The defense of Israel is still critical. So, there’s no red line where I’m going to cut off all weapons so they don’t have the Iron Dome to protect them.”

But Netanyahu told Axel Springer his only “red line” is to make sure Israel never goes through another attack like the one his country experienced on October 7—when Hamas killed 1,200 people in Southern Israel and took hundreds of hostages, some of which still remain in its custody.

So far, cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the USA , despite earlier hope for a pause to hostilities by the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Justice Department asks Supreme Court to end delays of Trump’s January 6 trial

February 15, 2024

On Wednesday, February 14, federal prosecutors urged the Supreme Court not to delay Donald Trump’s trial for his coup attempt any further—calling a quick resolution of those criminal charges a matter of utmost importance for the country, reports The Huffington Post.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” Special Counsel Jack Smith wrote in a 39-page brief filed with the court Wednesday evening. He called Trump’s actions an “effort to perpetuate himself in power and prevent the lawful winner of the 2020 presidential election from taking office.

“The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling,” he wrote.

The former president on Monday asked the high court to freeze that prosecution through two more rounds of appeals—a request that, if granted, could put Trump in a position of ordering the Department of Justice to dismiss all federal cases against him, should he win back the presidency this autumn.

Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court that his riling up his followers with lies about a “stolen” election that culminated in the violent assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to keep him in power was, in fact, an “official” act of the presidency for which he cannot be prosecuted. He also claims he cannot be prosecuted for his actions because the Senate failed to hit the two-thirds supermajority needed to convict him on that impeachment. What’s more, he argues that the Founders always intended for presidents to enjoy total immunity.

All those arguments were previously rejected by both trial Judge Tanya Chutkan as well as the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That appellate court ruled that the case would return to Chutkan for trial unless the Supreme Court granted him a delay while it considers Trump’s request.

Smith wrote in his new filing that Trump had no grounds to seek another delay at this point. “He has no entitlement to a further stay while seeking discretionary review from this court,” Smith said. “Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict―a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here; as it involves federal criminal charges against a former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power.

Further, Trump had not shown any historical or legal basis for his claim that he is immune from prosecution. “A president’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law.”

Trump’s lawyers have gone beyond merely asking the Supreme Court to review the case and are demanding that Trump first be allowed to appeal to the full appellate court before coming to the high court—all while the January 6 case remains on hold.

But Smith asked the court to treat Trump’s request for a delay as a request for the court to review the three-judge panel’s ruling—thereby eliminating one of the steps Trump was asking for. Smith also asked the justices to decline taking the case at all, given the appellate court’s detailed ruling; but that if did take it, to do so on an expedited basis that would produce a ruling by the end of the court’s term this summer.

“The public interest weighs heavily in favor of this court’s issuance of its decision without delay,” Smith wrote.

The January. 6 case is one of two federal prosecutions Trump could end if he becomes president again. The other is based on his refusal to turn over secret documents he took with him to his South Florida country club upon leaving the White House.

Trump also faces a Georgia state prosecution for his attempt to overturn his election loss there and a New York state indictment accusing him of falsifying business records to hide a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Trump is privately pressuring GOP Senators to ‘kill’ border deal to deny Biden a win

January 26, 2024

On Wednesday, January 24, Donald Trump privately pressured Senate Republicans to “kill” a bipartisan deal to secure the U.S. border because he doesn’t want President Joe Biden to chalk up a win ahead of the 2024 presidential election, reports HuffPost.

Trump directly reached out to several GOP senators on Wednesday to tell them to reject any deal. The GOP presidential frontrunner also personally reached out to some Senate Republicans over the weekend, an anonymous source told HuffPost. “He doesn’t want Biden to have a victory,” said the source. “He told them he will fix the border when he is president…. He said he only wants the perfect deal.”

Trump’s meddling generated an “emotional” discussion in a closed-door meeting among Senate Republicans, as senators vented their frustrations for hours about the largely secret negotiations over emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel, and immigration. The conference is splintering into two camps—those who believe Republicans should take the deal, and those who are opposed at any cost.

“The rational Republicans want the deal because they want Ukraine and Israel and an actual border solution,” said the source. “But the others are afraid of Trump, or they’re the chaos caucus who never wants to pass anything.”

“They’re having a little crisis in their conference right now,” the source added.

A bipartisan group of senators has been working for months to craft a border deal, and Trump has made it no secret that he opposes it. On Wednesday, he wrote on Truth Social, his conservative social media site, “I do not think we should do a Border Deal, at all, unless we get EVERYTHING needed to shut down the INVASION of Millions and Millions of people.”

What’s different now, though, is that Trump is now directly telling GOP senators to oppose any deal. His meddling has left their conference in even more disarray than it was already in, and a potential border deal in limbo.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) demurred when asked if he thinks it’s constructive for Trump to tell Republicans not to make any border deals: “I could probably go through any number of things that Biden is saying that are not constructive when he’s on the campaign trail, but that’s the nature of campaigns,”

Tillis said. “So I’m not going to criticize President Trump or his positions.”

But, bucking Trump, he said he supported passing the bipartisan border deal, which Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) has been working on with Democrats.

“Based on what I’ve seen and based on the work that James Lankford has put in, it goes far enough for me,” said Tillis. “If anyone’s intellectually honest with themselves, they all know these would be extraordinary tools for President Trump.”

During Wednesday’s meeting, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) referenced comments Trump made as president in 2018 about the difficulty of getting Democrats to agree to changes to immigration laws. McConnell, who is no fan of Trump, was making the case that Republicans should agree to a border deal now, since the likelihood of Democrats potentially cutting a deal with Trump in the White House again would be highly unlikely.

Research contact: @HuffPost